Suzie

Many more references if you seek online. She believed Plural Marriage was actually an idea of Brigham Young.

I don't understand your question. Emma have always DENIED that JS practiced plural marriage.

State the reference material that states Joseph Smith lived Plural Marriage? If you ever visited the Church genealogy site and you saw the genealogy tree for Joseph Smith Jr, you would have seen the list of all his wives. Not sure if that's what you are asking?

Emma denied until her death that Joseph Smith ever practiced plural marriage despite the fact he did, therefore you won't find any evidence of what you're looking for.

Again, how do you know these things for a fact?

Let me understand this for a moment. So it wasn't revealed to the Prophet as far as I am concerned (I never heard him claiming that it is an "eternal fact" as a matter of fact Pres. Hinckley said the Lord is the only one who can decide that, making no statement of this being a "fact" for eternity) but you claim you KNOW? That's a hard pill to swallow.

I agree. However, if the Church decides to share part of it's history then why not share the rest? Well, I see Church as a school where we learn the things we need to DO in order to get closer to God. Sure. Will they cover in detail the MMM, the wives of Joseph Smith, the struggles of Emma accepting the revelation, the struggles of the early brethren who had to give away their wives to be sealed to the Prophet, will they cover why some Blacks in early Church history were given the Priesthood by the Prophet Joseph Smith and years later suddenly stopped? If they cover these things and MORE, sure. But I have been in Institute and these topics were never covered in detail. So if Institute does not cover those topics, where is the forum? Also why people shouldn't discuss things that are only historical? (I suppose you mean in Church Sunday meetings rather than other Church meetings?)

In my opinion based on my readings of Paul, he has a different concept of the word "Apostle".

Mormonmusic, thank you for such detailed, heart-felt post. I think sometimes we think some of the people that have a hard time getting past these things lack testimonies, I think many times they do not, they truly do not. They just have concerns, deep ones and they're serious about how they feel.

From Galatians 1:1

I don't want to sound disrespectful but there is no way you know this for a fact. It's unlikely? Sure it is, but other than that, we just don' know (I'm not saying I particularly want a change in these things eh)

The scripture is key here because it doesn't say only that Christ does what His Father has done but he does what he sees His father doing.

If you say so. That's the wonderful thing about forums like this one. We all can share our opinions, so yours is appreciated. I am interested in reading other ones as well.

So according to you, forming a study group outside church with no leaders/teachers to oversee if what is being taught is accurate is actually the forum for it? Sorry, I don't think so.

Well if we erase those things, the Church won't be the Church anymore. It will be another church. Also, should we erase those things to become acceptable to the world?

I respectfully disagree. Just like the example Mormonmusic gave, we have way too many members who do not know our church history and end up hurt when they "discover" something that the present Church does not want to teach. It does not help anyone in my view. It does not help the member and it does not help the nonmember who may be looking for answers in a church member. Imagine how a nonmember feels when a member does not know the history of the Church, he/she claims to be the Restored Church. Even in seminary and Institute classes, these topics are not discussed in depth. Ask most members in your ward, and I am pretty sure you will be told the myth that the reason for Plural Marriage was because there were many widows who needed husbands. For some reason, we have a very hard time accepting that it was a commandment from the Lord (if we believe JS was right) clearly stated in D & C 132, so we invent, we justify, we rationalize...I guess it's human nature however, the Church does not do much about clarifying the topic either or any other controversial topic. The Massacre was real, still real for the descendants of the victims and even though we truly do not know exactly what took place, trying to avoid the discussion altogether or pretending it never happened by not discussing about it makes the whole thing worst. I have been in many church classes when someone would mention "Plural Marriage" or "Blacks and the priesthood" and suddenly the countenances would change, people would start whispering to each other's ears and the question of the person would be quickly dismissed by stating that either "it's not important for our salvation" or "we will discuss it another time". It's silly really. It creates this mantle of darkness over things the Church DID practice, over doctrines we STILL believing and over our past that the Church in some ways, seems to be embarrassed about.

Including the Church?

I think this is the quote:

I agree 100%. My issue though is the picking and choosing. If most of the stuff for example coming out from the JOD isn't considered doctrinal because the JOD isn't "doctrine" according to the Church then why quote extracts from it in church magazines and other publications? We can't have it both ways in my view. It sounds odd to say "Brigham Young said...such and such" and then when we mention his view on Blacks or his views about Aliens we suddenly brushed it off and say it was HIS opinion just because what he said is controversial. I agree with you, I am not expecting for these men to be correct in all things. Actually I am in the group who thinks prophets and GA are just men with the same strengths and weaknesses than we have. Definitely I don't believe in their infallibility neither I am in the worship-wagon of them. I respect them, I believe that a lot of the things they said is inspired and I pray to receive answer and confirmation of their words. My issue isn't really about the mistakes of these men (if there were mistakes) but the way the issue of quoting the things they said is handled.

That's one of the problems I have about consistency. By one hand, we say it was Brigham Young's opinion on the matter when we quote him from the JOD with regards to this issue, men living in the moon and sun, etc but then from the same sources they quote him in so many others non-controversial issues. So when was exactly his opinion and when it wasn't? So it sounds to me that as long as what he said isn't controversial, is good enough to quote but when it isn't...then is simply labeled as his opinion.

I don't understand. She had feelings for this guy to the point that she wrote to him WITHOUT knowing he was married? And the guy did not even know? Sorry but it sounds very odd (psychologically speaking).

Wow the thread went offtopic. Okay I will stop here before I get in trouble.

What stupid remarks are you referring to? What I meant was simple. I dream A LOT of stuff.

Oh I agree with you completely on this. As a matter of fact I am in the group who think general authorities are just humans, with challenges, weaknesses and strengths just like the rest of us. However, since they haven't claim they have seen Christ I am not going to assume they have.

I dreamed with Christ several times but I don't claim that I have seen Him. That's the difference for me. Heck, I dream with aliens and monkey mutations as well. They are SPECIAL witnesses of Christ. If they receive the revelations in the same way than I do then why are they "special"?