"Joseph Smith and polygamy..."

[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.

Yes, but to the LDS the marraige continues after death, all of the marraiges sealed in the temple continue. My father-inlaw was sealed to his first wife. She died. He remarried in the temple again. He expects to be with both wives in the afterlife. Is this not polygamy? So the church still practises polygamy. Why does The Church continue to mask this fact?

[helix]

Why does The Church continue to mask this fact?

Why do you sarcastically bait your questions with the phrase "The Church "?

It is hard to imagine that you are sincerely asking questions in hope for sincere answers.

[Nighthawke]

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.

[thesometimesaint]

iknowthischurchistrue:

You've answered your own question. If you know about it and I know about it. It is hardly hidden.

[TruthFirst]

Brackite,

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

QUOTE

[thesometimesaint]

TF:

I don't understand your question.

[charity]

TF, me neither.

[TruthFirst]

...tapping my head trying to re-vebalize my thought....

I guess what I'm having a hard time connecting is that....how can something be an obomination in the site of the Lord, when in fact, it is in place, and in use by the Lord, even at this very moment.

We were made aware of this everlasting covenant in 1942, and we have been able to benefit from it every day since. ...and given that it is an eternal law...it is binding on earth or heaven.

It has been mentioned several times even on this thread that it is STILL a doctine of the Gospel, and the lord allows it to carry on in heaven. It makes no logical sense that it was phrased as "An Abomination" Its clearly NOT an abomination. It is clearly a functioning and intregal part of our eternal exaltation.

this basic idea, as I see it, is directly contradictive to the assertion that having more than one wife, or even concubines (does that mean people that are only sealed to you?) is abominable to the Lord. I liken that idea to something like...the Lord saying...no unclean thing can be in my presence....and then alllowing sometimes unclean things to enter.

So I'm having a hard time understanding how we can live under ideas that contradict each other and sit ok with it.

any discussion to help me?

[helix]

this basic idea, as I see it, is directly contradictive to the assertion that having more than one wife, or even concubines (does that mean people that are only sealed to you?) is abominable to the Lord.  I liken that idea to something like...the Lord saying...no unclean thing can be in my presence....and then alllowing sometimes unclean things to enter.

And where does it say that it is abominable? If you are referring to Jacob 2, I would highly suggest you search these forums looking for some past dicussions about that chapter. Jacob 2 is often glossed over and misunderstood. Those threads can hopefully clear up much of the confusion.

[thesometimesaint]

TF:

If God tells you to do something is it an abomination?

IE: In Exodus, God says "Thou shalt not kill". A few verses later it is "Thou shalt utterly destroy". (KJVBible)

[John Corrill]

Nighthawke: Where in the gospel of Jesus Christ does it say "Thou shalt learn every minutiae of Joseph Smith and every other prophet of God's intimate familial relations and Church history from Adam all the way up to the year of our Lord 2005 to gain salvation and exaltation"?

John Corrill: I suppose the same could be said with regard to Joseph and Emma's relationship. Yet, we do read LOTS and LOTS of details in church published literature, lessons, conference talks, etc about their relationship.

The experiences of Joseph's wives (Lucy Walker, among others, comes to mind) are incredible stories of faith, obedience and sacrifice. Some of these women indicated that they "gave" or "sacrificed" even their lives to become Joseph's wife. But, we never hear the slightest reference to these women.

I wonder if we as a church know, and perhaps fear, that Joseph's behavior with regard to his plural wives was inappropriate. So much so, that we dare not discuss the topic. If there was nothing inappropriate going on, then certainly we would be more comfortable today discussing the stories of faith, obedience and loyalty these women displayed.

I propose that we as LDS deal with Joseph's relationships the same we deal with King David. I remember hearing in Sunday School, seminary, institute, FHE, etc the stories of a righteous David taking down Goliath, etc. We also OPENLY discussed the minutia (watching Bathsheba bathe, the lust, the adultery, etc), of David's later indiscretions.

We still find a way to honor David for his great moments, but also recognize, and discuss, his weaker moments. I've never heard anyone say, "we should not be dragging Davids dirty laundry out like this". Rather, his experience has become a well known object lesson, and a warning, to us today.

[charity]

John, You say we "know or suspect" something not right about Joseph Smith's life? Do you have a testimony that he was and continues to be a prophet of God? If you do, then you don't have to worry about what might be between him and God.

I personally, do not have any questions about Joseph. I have a strong witness that he served his calling as prophet with honor, and when he died a martyr he was approved of God. What else is there?

[John Corrill]

Charity: John, You say we "know or suspect" something not right about Joseph Smith's life?

John Corrilll: Sure. Just like EVERY other prophet or man of God, whose "issues" we OPENLY acknowlegde and discuss in Sunday School, seminary, FHE, General Conference, institute and other church publications. For example:

Adam (Remember his "problems" in the garden?)

Moses (Q: Why didn't he get to enter the promised land? A: "...ye rebelled against my commandment..." Numbers 27:12)

Noah (Likes to sleep naked and drunk in his tent Genesis 9:21)

David (Remember Bathsheba?)

Charity: Do you have a testimony that he was and continues to be a prophet of God?

John Corrill: I love the words of Moroni 7:12-16. They are great guide when evaluating anything, even prophets (emphasis mine):

"...all things which are good cometh of God...that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good...is inspired of God

...it is given unto you to judge...and the way to judge is plain...every thing which inviteth to do good...you may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God..."

I'm willing to accept all the good things Joseph Smith did

Charity: If you do, then you don't have to worry about what might be between him and God.

John Corrill: We as a church openly discuss the inappropriate things other prophets have done. Why do we treat Joseph Smith differently than all the other prophets? Also, the things he did were not just between him and God. What he did involved many other people: the young girls and women, the families of these young girls and women; the husbands of some of the women he married, etc.

Charity: I personally, do not have any questions about Joseph. I have a strong witness that he served his calling as prophet with honor, and when he died a martyr he was approved of God. What else is there?

John Corrill: Do you feel the same way about Adam, Moses and Noah? If so, why do you suppose we as a church are comfortable openly discussiong these prophets weaknessesss, transgressions, rebellion, etc but not Joseph Smith's?

[Dunamis]

John Corrill: We as a church openly discuss the inappropriate things other prophets have done. Why do we treat Joseph Smith differently than all the other prophets? Also, the things he did were not just between him and God. What he did involved many other people: the young girls and women, the families of these young girls and women; the husbands of some of the women he married, etc.

I think it has been explained with great care that those who disagree with you do not consider polygamy to be a "weakness". Therefore, your questions are disingenuous as best.

This has come to the point of board slamming. We know what everyone feels after this many pages We have heard both sides. What has not been answered or responded to? Without agreement what more is there to say?

Produce something new or move on.

[thesometimesaint]

John Carrill:

We DON'T know a whole lot about David's relationship with his wives outside of Bathsheba.

We DON"T know a whole lot about JS relationship with his wives outside of Emma.

Come let us reason together.

Every adult member of the Church knows that JS practiced polygamy.

Every adult member of the church knows that marriage is difficult, with hard times and good times. JS was murdered while still young(when compared with me. ) What would those relationships have developed into is anyones guess.

Every member of the church should be striving to become more like Jesus the Christ, not Peter, not James, or John, or Paul, not even Joseph Smith.

You appear to be fixated on this. That JS was not perfect. That JS practiced polygamy. That JS stubbed his toe occassionally are just tidbits of history, and has absolutely NO beariing on our salvation. Let it go.

[John Corrill]

Dunamis: I think it has been explained with great care that those who disagree with you do not consider polygamy to be a "weakness".

John Corriill: Agreed.

Dunamis: Therefore, your questions are disingenuous as best.

John Corrill: This is certainly possible; even probable. See my answer below.

Dunamis: What has not been answered or responded to?

John Corrill: The only thing I'm aware of that has not been answered is this question: Why do we not hear about Joseph's plural wives in the same forums (SS, church literature, etc) that we hear so much about Emma?

I had hoped for an answer, I really did. At this juncture, I agree, my repeatedly asking it has become pointless.

[Dunamis]

John Corrill: The only thing I'm aware of that has not been answered is this question: Why do we not hear about Joseph's plural wives in the same forums (SS, church literature, etc) that we hear so much about Emma?

I had hoped for an answer, I really did. At this juncture, I agree, my repeatedly asking it has become pointless.

You have received copious answers! Have the courtesy to acknowledge the efforts others made to satisfy your question. It took me all of a few minutes to bring up several replies and this is from only a few pages:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

There are plenty of LDS scholars who have studied it, plenty of non-LDS scholars as well, and anyone who is interested can get online or go to a local library. The mission of the Church, as self-described, does not include explaining, teaching, accounting for, or even acknowledging every little historical or even doctrinal detail of its past or its theology.

Teaching all historical facts is not high on the list of purposes for SS. And far too few of us spend enough time truly studying scriptures. So for those asking to be spoonfed every morsel of information that you wished you had known . . hopefully this morsel explains . . that isn't the goal of SS.

Yeah, I agree that it's not really all that high priority to study in-depth LDS history. I mean, SS doesn't exactly dig deep with everything studied. I think it should be the members own responsibility to learn more about the church. There are courses, institute, sites and a lot of different resources people can turn to. If all you ever do is just listen to talks in church - then you won't learn everything about the church.

Are Joseph's other wives less important than Emma?  Why don't we hear about them? 

Interesting question. I'm really interested in your thoughts on this.

Given the marriage dates in relation to his death I don't see the point of your question, though. Why do you think they played as important of a role in the restoration and develoopment of the early LDS Church as Emma?

Do you have materials which make the case their role as plural wives are as important and relevant to our lives today? Why? What doctrinal messages are missing in teachings that reflect current practice? Can you make the case for an important missing truth in how their plural marriages demonstrate God's will for us today?

Add on: I went to the official Church Web site, www.lds.org. In the "Gospel Library" section I did a search using the search term "polygamy" and came up with 80 hits. Using the search string "plural marriage," I got 69 hits. On the search terms "Joseph Smith," "polygamy" and "plural marriage" (i.e. all of the terms occurring in the same article) I got 14 hits.

The above activity took, I would say, five to 10 minutes to accomplish.

[John Corrill]

Dunamis: You have received copious answers! Have the courtesy to acknowledge the efforts others made to satisfy your question.

John Corrill: Thank-you Dunamis, and thank you ALL for your participation and efforts on this thread. As always, it has been interesting and instructive!!!

[emaughan]

John since we are going on anecdotal and not statistical evidence on this issue let me chime in. My wife joined the church in 1990 at OSU. She learned a great deal about polagamy and church history BEFORE she was even baptized. Some of this was from discussions they had in gospel essentials and the rest was her own study. She even did a paper on the topic for one of her classes at OSU. It was no secret to her. I have been a member all my life and I have long known that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. I honestly do not know when I learned this because the knowledge goes way back to my early days. I'm sure part of this is do to my polygamist ancestory which I am well informed, but I have heard the issue raised varrious times in church.

For a member of 20 years to state that they never knew that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy suggests to me that individual must have a sever case of ADHD, hang out in the halls during class, and have zero motivation to look into the history of the very church to which they belong! Most non-members know this for crimany sakes. Mormons are best known for polygamy, not smoking or drinking, and having a good choir. So if the non members know this, why would there be so many clueless, brain dead, unmotivated, head-in-sand members that never knew such a thing.

Catch-22 time.

Every time the critics speak out of one side of their mouth telling us that we do not spend enough time to teaching about Jesus and focus too much on folks like Joseph Smith, they then turn around and speak out the other side of their mouth saying that the church does not do enough to teach the members about doctrine "X" (usually an antiMo pick of the day).

As a LDS I have learned from the antiMos that we are definately damned if we do and damned if we don't. So I'm looking forward to hanging out in the eternities with all my damned friends.

[Bertram]

I studied the "MORMONS" (as they were called in my Country) for about 2 years.

I was in a position of "authority" in my previous church and I considered it a duty to advise them of my activities.

My Family and associates were made aware of my position as well.

Believe me I was made well aware of "them mormins" and their "teachings" in no uncertain manner!! Anything I have heard on this Board from ANTIS/BAC/EV and disaffected Members and Ex-Members pale into insignificance!

If Members have not heard of all things, Polygamy, then I would be rather surprised!

[charity]

John, name me one of Joseph F. Smith's wives? And tell me her life story. I am sure these women were exemplary. So, just drop the whole "The church should have lessons on the plural wives" thing.

[Nighthawke]

Nighthawke:

[John Corrill]

Nighthawike, thank-you for that post.

[cinepro]

Emma's difficulty in accepting plural marriage

Sorry, Nighthawke, I guess you didn't get the memo.

Emma didn't have difficulty accepting "plural marriage". According to the August 2005 Ensign, she had difficulty accepting "eternal marriage":

Section 132: July 12, 1843 This section came at the request of Hyrum Smith for a written revelation to convince Emma Smith of the truthfulness of the principles of eternal marriage.

Doctrine And Covenants Timeline

(emphasis added)

I wonder how that conversation went:

Hyrum:  But with Eternal Marriage, families can be forever.  Your marriage to Joseph will never end!

Emma (in Lucille Ball whiney-voice): But I don't wanna be married forever!  Besides,  I don't believe it anyway. Unless you can show me something in writing.  Then I might be convinced. 

[Zeitgeist]

Cinepro great posts as always. I myself was extremely active, came from an very active family, was around many great members, studied everything about the chruch I could find - hadn't learned Joseph Smith practiced polygamy until I was in college. Back in my time, the issue wasn't so well documented and information the church put out never discussed it much. Even today it in my opinion isn't well discussed. The whole issue of polygamy isn't well discussed now more than when I was younger. When I was younger it was well known by everyone that we would be living it in the millennium and that it was stopped because of the evil world rejecting it. People discussed its practice, but not the history, the details, or even workings. Now these kind of things can be local, but every member my age that was the general thoughts.

Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy was different than later members, this is a reason I think it should be discussed. As well as being honest about Emma. It is dishonest to her memory to say she was against eternal marriage. That is a very PC way to talk about it - but as Cinepro has pointed out ridiculous.

I grew up hearing that Joseph practiced it a few times from "disreputatble" townsfolk. I ignored it as everyone and even heard it denied by most members. I believed as I was told - it was a lie. Funny that the old timers never said anything about that - as they grew up where it was common knowledge or was it. I had one older person say that it was taught to him by his polygamous grand-parents that Joseph had it revealed to him, but he never got a chance to practice it. Leaders have argued the contrary, with the RLDS church.

When I first realized it was true, I was stunned. It was in some ways the biggest bombshell I had ever heard and hurt my sensibilities more than anything else. Particularly since I was first acquainted with this knowledge from journals and documents that described Joseph's marriage to Fanny Alger in the early 1830s - things I was told were a lie to defame the character of Joseph and hur tthe church. I had just spent time teaching to a convert with a bishop present for months that Joseph did not practice it. I felt horrible. The most disturbing issue was that I felt lied to, or atleast mislead by the silence. I felt horrible about the details of children with other wives, who were married to other men. (I do not konw what they call it where you are from but we call this adultery, sometimes behind the husbands back). I felt horrible to find it was practiced behind Emma's back. I look back now and still wonder if the church will ever discuss this behavior a little more in the open. Sure anyone can get information now, the church acknowledges that he did practice it, and what not. But it seems to hardly scratch the surface.

I sometimes like to imagine myself as a covert to the church who hears about this one. I know of a few people who have had this sprung on them after joining - sometimes years later. They often struggle and some even left the church. I think it is dishonest to avoid the topic so much. I am not saying shame shame on the church, just I think they should reconsider how much they talk about it. I noticed a piece the other day that expressed the idea of when you adopt a child you must be willing to accept their history. Joining the church is like getting adopted - I think there shouldn't be secrets, whether intentional or not.

Zeitgeist