Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

JS DID practice polygamy


Scottie

Recommended Posts

Only if they are personally interested. Why would a practice terminated over a hundred years ago really bother most members alive today?

Because it shows the character of the so called prophet. In my view, it completely changed the view I had of JS. It was a BIG step in seeing him as the false prophet that I believe he is. THAT is why it is such a big deal.

Now, I would ask you...why is it such a big deal for the church to whitewash this? Almost ALL members know that BY was a polygamist, yet they have no problem with it.

First, Scottie, congrats on a subject that is really *HOT*. Wow.

No kidding!! It was a simple question! I wasn't even condemning the church, I was merely asking why so many people that I know didn't know.

Because that's what JS did. You did know that, right? BY didn't. Simple, if you don't get your shorts in a knot.

So, because JS hid it, we shouldn't teach it? I'm confused by this. History is history.

Not at all. EVERYONE picks and chooses. You haven't seen that in yourself? Guess you're livid about how Jesus taught in parables.

If they were picking and choosing about small little nit-picky things, I wouldn't have a problem. But, IMNSHO, JS and polygamy is a HUGE thing. For them to choose to not teach this raises a big red flag.

I'm really sorry your are having such an issue on this.

I'm really not! I thought it was an intersting observation that SO many of the people I know didn't know this. I was curious as to why you all thought they didn't. I wasn't speaking for all mankind or anything.

Does it effect your Salvation if JS practiced Polygamy or not?

It very well might. What if I'm in the wrong church. What if JS practicing polygamy leads me to the church that will actually save me? What if YOU are all damned for believing in just another false church?

Or . . . somebody didn't bother to read what's actually there?

Come on. 'Fess up. The scene in The RM where nobody knows who's doing the lesson and nobody has a copy of the lesson manual (much less read it) is a more accurate portrayal of your situation than you really want to admit, n'est-ce pas?

This is possible. However I find it unlikely that they skipped that section for over 55 years (my Mom's age, anyways)??

Link to comment
I knew it (multiple sealings to JS) from an early age. How come you didn't? Seems like pretty common knowledge to me.....

I happen to have a theory about why some of us were taught it and some not. Want to hear it?

Okay, I'm surmising you are nodding yes...........

I think that many of us have parents who have done what has been asked of parents from day one and that is to teach the gospel in the home and let the Church be the support instead of the other way around. I recall the first time I heard of JS having polygamous marriages being in FHE. Mind you, my dad sat on the couch with cigarrette lit and Louis L'Amour in hand but often commented mid stream mom giving the lessons. (he's been active now for over 25 years and is a Bishop but just thought I'd throw that visual in) He was raised in the church and left at 16 but his two cents here and there gave us a lot of essential doctrine we needed to know that wasn't always taught in the confines of the Primary and SS classrooms because so many others are uncomfortable teaching these things thinking they are bad pr for the church when in all actuality it is doctrinal and SHOULD be taught without hesitation.

I can recall hearing it throughout Primary, SS, and seminary but that may be because I had some down home hard core believers for teachers and is probably why I'm not also afraid to expound on the truths when applicable within the context of lessons for any age...............

What do you think of my theory???????/

Link to comment
So, 1 vote for blame falling on the individual.
How many more pages do you want?

How about something in a Sunday School manual. I freely admit that the information is out there, but why isn't it taught in church?

As I posted the LAST time this came up (like 2 weeks ago):

I have an old Gospel Doctrine class Teacher's Manual, copyright 1991.

From the lession on D&C 132:

page 77:

"-Why was Abraham justified in having more than one wife and in being willing to offer Isaac as a sacrifice? (See D&C 132:29, 34-37) and the quotation from the Prophet Joseph Smith.) How has the Lord blessed you when you have obeyed a commandment even though you did not fully understand its purpose?"

"-What may have been reasons for the Lord's commandment to the early Saints to have more than one wife?"

"The Prophet Joseph Smith:

Link to comment
I find it incredulous that you would leave the Church over polygamy.  It would seem to me that more is lacking than mere concerns over polygamy.

That is CERTAINLY not the ONLY reason I left. It is a big one, but there are many, MANY more.

Ray Callis Hatton III, that is a very compelling argument. That gives me something to think on. Thanks!

You'd be hard pressed to find 100 people in the Church TODAY that can name all of BY wives without looking it up.

So? How does that relate to whether or not they know that JS practiced polygamy? I doubt you could find 10 people that could recite the genology from David to Christ. Does that mean ANYTHING?

Couldn't tell you. I seem to recall discussing it in deacons or teachers quorum though I'm sure it wasn't part of the lesson.

Yeah, I think that those of you that DO know were told because the teacher knew. It wasn't because it was in any manuals.

Link to comment

Knowing or not knowing about anyone's practice of polygamy over 150 years ago does not impact my salvation and eternal life. When we all are living the Gospel perfectly, then the Church can spend some time teaching us about things that are not important.

No one leaves the Church because of the issue of polygamy. If you have a testimony that the Book of Mormon is what it says it is, and that the Church is lead by a prophet today as it was in the past, all those other issues are just dogs barking at the wagon train. They cause a lot of noise, but the wagons keep moving.

There are people who are dense. But that doesn't mean they aren't faithful Latter-Day Saints, (not that you were saying they weren't). But it will interesting to see who makes it where when we get on the other side. Smart isn't necessarily wise.

Link to comment

Here's one example of what you're looking for Scottie. I'm sure I could find more.

"Church History in the Fullness of Times"

Religion 341 -343

This church manual is the basic reference/teaching guide used throughout the church for church history.

Page 255 - 256 (I'll only include the salient quotes)

"Revelations on Marriage

... The law of celestial marriage, as outlined in this revelation (D&C 132) also included the principle of the plurality of wives...

... Accustomed to conventional marriage patterns, the Prophet was at first understandably reluctant to engage in the new practice. Due to a lack of historical documentation, we do not know what his early attempts were to comply with the commandment in Ohio. His first recorded plural marriage in Nauvoo was to Louisa Beaman; it was performed by Bishop Joseph B. Noble on 5 April 1841. During the next three years Joseph took additional plural wives in accordance with the Lord's commands."

I also read about JS's polygamy in Heber C. Kimball's autobiography.

I'm not a church history geek. I have just have a few books that interest me.

I've also heard about the angel with the sword story when polygamy was discussed in the past in SS and priesthood.

Here's how I've personally dealt with the polygamy issue. Maybe this will help you Scottie:

Rather than trying to research and figure out who JS married when - which ones were sealings only - which ones included sex/children, etc.

I looked at the scriptures and teachings that JS produced during the same time. Do I have a testimony of those? Are they real? Did JS just make them up while at the same time gratifying his lust? Did he fool the people around him?

Which question should you try to answer first?

I suggest you figure out if you have a testimony of what JS produced. Is it of God? If so, how could he be simultaneously philandering. Doesn't work.

As is stated in the church history manual - it's unclear exactly what happened when regarding his plural wives. You can research that first and determine that JS was an evil, lying, lecherous man based on what's known and throw out everything else.

So laying polygamy aside for a moment, what do you believe about the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants?

Link to comment

Scottie,

Because it shows the character of the so called prophet.

What, Kind of like the dirty rotten scoundral Abraham who gives his wife to other men so he can black male them?

Or how about Peter and his lying to save his own skin?

Seems to me you wanted Joseph Smith to be Christ incarnate.

:P

Link to comment
Hmm.. perhaps the US Government should give full disclosure when it comes to things like watergate.

:P

Or Bill Clinton's antics in the Oval Office? LOL.........had to gasp the other day when I heard some good reasons as to why our youth today are so apt to go about engaging in certain sexual practices and the connection was made to our infamous past President and Ms. Lewinsky's personal agenda in the Oval Office....

I about had heart failure and said "I never would have put two and two together but it makes perfect sense to me" The children we have as teens now were small youngsters who have grown up in this man's shadowy explanations of "I did not have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky" Well, there you have it folks! If the President of the United States states that what he did was not sex then no wonder our youth are so apt to engage..........it's not really sex........makes me cringe to think that they have been so brainwashed...........and people complain that we follow the Prophet------well, those who do most of the complaining extol the virtues of this man.(I personally don't know of any that he has) <_<

Simply

Link to comment
I find it incredulous that you would leave the Church over polygamy. It would seem to me that more is lacking than mere concerns over polygamy.

I think some members are bothered by LDS polygamy for one reason. It speaks about the character of the men who engaged in the the practice.

For some, the secrecy surrounding Joseph Smith's involvement in polygamy, canonized declarations deny and forbidding the practice, and laws against it, does not bode well for the character of these men.

Link to comment

BCSpace, Good theory! I like it!

Blaming the church for your ignorance is disingenuous and totally unjustified.

Absolutely untrue!! I was taught from a very early age to fear research!! Researching the church MIGHT lead us into anti material and in my mind, that was a sin next to murder.

Yeah, yeah...I'm sure you'll now state how the leaders have encouraged research, and I'm sure that is true. But, for whatever reason, in MY early life, I was terrified to read ANYTHING other than the Ensign, Friend and the scriptures.

Link to comment

Scottie,

Absolutely untrue!! I was taught from a very early age to fear research!! Researching the church MIGHT lead us into anti material and in my mind, that was a sin next to murder.

By who ? The Church?

Or perhaps it was a well meaning family member or leader with an over inflated fear of the unknown?

Link to comment

Ok, so it looks like it IS in the manuals. I like my crow with a little butter please... :P

So, let me ask of you all. If you were to go ask 100 members in your ward where polygamy started, how many would answer JS?

Link to comment
Scottie,
Absolutely untrue!! I was taught from a very early age to fear research!! Researching the church MIGHT lead us into anti material and in my mind, that was a sin next to murder.

By who ? The Church?

Or perhaps it was a well meaning family member or leader with an over inflated fear of the unknown?

I really can't answer. I'm not sure where it came from.

If I had to guess, it was just an underlying theme around the area I lived in growing up. It probably got mentioned a lot in Sac Meeting talks and such.

Link to comment
As you study, you'll notice that the church only teaches the parts of history that are "faith promoting". Unfortunately, the truth is not always so. As for me, I'd rather be taught the whole truth up front, faith promoting or not.

BRILLIANT !!!!

That is the whole point people !

What is wrong with the truth, that it can't be held up to the forefront with confidence?

Here is a basic principle of human nature people do what they do and say what they say that will most benefit them.

let me ask each of you a simple question to illistrate this principle. When you have a child or an employee answer a question that you know to be "not the full story, or not the truth"

What does the act of doing that mean? What has actually taken place there? Do you think that if coming forth with the truth would have benefited them they would have gave the truthful answer? Absolutely ! But they kept something from you because THAT is what would benefit them most.

in other words the act of not dissclosing something in full view is the very same thing as "concealing" something from full view. ...which means....

Something is being hidden !

EDIT:

Now, Why would a church who claims to "have the truth" be employed in such a practice? (this includes the whole gamut of issues listed on the FAIR site)

Link to comment
But, for whatever reason, in MY early life, I was terrified to read ANYTHING other than the Ensign, Friend and the scriptures.

A lot of people feel like the church have covered something up when they learn about it for the first time from non-lds sources. I don't think the church is covering things up though, I just think there is a time and a place to teach about messy things in the church's history.

Consider the three-fold mission of the church: Redeem dead, preach the gospel, and perfect saints.

I don't see in any of these three purposes a place to teach Js's polygamy, or the Mountain Meadow Massacres, or racism of past prophets. Which is why I think you don't hear about them often over the pulpit or in Sunday School. Even in early morning seminary, i'm not sure it would be appropriate for the year of D&C.

Still, that doesn't mean the church is covering them up. I know that here at BYU's "church history" classes they do go over JS and polygamy, and Brigham Young's many wives. They also bring in MMM, and other topics that make your average mormon squirm and struggle a bit. They teach them at these classes because they are "church history" classes, and that is where they need to be taught.

But when someone who hasn't been to a church history class, or whose parents haven't taught them about this stuff finds out, they feel like they've been deceived. Why did they never hear about it in church? because it doesn't fit into its mission; but that doesn't mean it's being covered up. On the contrary, i think the resources are there for anyone to learn if they have interest.

That's what I think anyway...

In my family we were always encouraged to ask hard questions--whether in SS, FHE, etc.

Link to comment

(I can't believe I forgot to mention D&C 132)

Ok, so it looks like it IS in the manuals.

The laws of the practice of plural marriage are in D&C 132 so it's not just the manuals.

So, let me ask of you all. If you were to go ask 100 members in your ward where polygamy started, how many would answer JS?

As many has have read D&C 132 all the way through. Say 30%?

Link to comment

Let me ask another question...

Do you think that we SHOULD know about JS having multiple wives?

Do you think that we should know about his refusing alcohol when having his leg operated on?

They are both historical facts, the importance of which could be argued. The former is hardly ever taught, while the later is trumpeted all over the place.

I don't know if the church is hiding or whitewashing any of this, but from my experience it appears that they are. So far, 5 out of 9 people that I have brought this up with didn't know that JS practiced polygamy. That is FAR too small of a sample to mean anything, however it did raise concern.

Link to comment

Scottie, how old are you? Never mind, I saw above that you said your mother is 55. So she's close to my age... (I hit the big five-oh this year).

I have always been inquisitive about history, and I read all the church's official histories before I was out of my teens. Saw nothing volatile, aside from a recognition that times and viewpoints were different in the past. (I have not read through the Journal of Discourse yet... maybe someday.)

So I don't know where you ever got the idea that researching Church history is discouraged. Never was for me...

To your point about polygamy... D&C 132 specifically talks about polygamy, and mentions Joseph Smith and his wife Emma by name. How anyone could not read that and not understand that JS was engaged in plural marriage is beyond me.

But as one poster noted, your mother is not wrong, in one sense. The plural marriages of JS did not appear to be of the same type as the main polygamy period in Utah later on. Many (if not all) were in name only, for the eternities, and were often for tying important LDS clans together into eternal families (the notorious marriage to the 14-year-old Kimball girl is in this latter category).

I am sorry that you have decided that you cannot believe anymore. I have seen everything you have, and much more evidence (probably), and yet I am more convinced than ever that this is the Lord's true Church on Earth. Why do you think this is? (And please don't pull a Tal Bachman on me and claim I have my head in the sand... Such an attack simply will not wash...)

Yours sincerely,

Beowulf

Link to comment
Ok, so it looks like it IS in the manuals. I like my crow with a little butter please... :P

So, let me ask of you all. If you were to go ask 100 members in your ward where polygamy started, how many would answer JS?

Funny you should ask.

I didn't ask that exact question, but I did ask several related questions of 43 members of my ward. It was posted on a previous thread. I copy it below.

Here are the results of my unofficial, unscientific poll/survey of members in my Gospel Doctrine class on the subject of polygamy and the church

Link to comment
Do you think that we SHOULD know about JS having multiple wives?

Yes. But it's not like it's not being taught. Whenever Sunday School gets around to D&C 132, it's always in the context of Emma not wanting to agree to this practice.

Do you think that we should know about his refusing alcohol when having his leg operated on?

Of course.

The former is hardly ever taught, while the later is trumpeted all over the place.

Neither suprising or unreasonable. Plural marriage is not practised by the Church at this time by the WoW is.

I don't know if the church is hiding or whitewashing any of this, but from my experience it appears that they are. So far, 5 out of 9 people that I have brought this up with didn't know that JS practiced polygamy. That is FAR too small of a sample to mean anything, however it did raise concern.

The more this conversation goes on, the less important it seems to me that the Church should make any additional effort to teach what's already in D&C 132 and available to all.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...