Not another polygamy thread! (sigh)

[BenRaines]

Hugh Nibley's response to book "You don't know my history by Fawn M. Brodie.

Hugh W. Nibley: "No, Ma'am, That's Not History"

[mike_uk]

Hugh Nibley's response to book "You don't know my history by Fawn M. Brodie.

Hugh W. Nibley: "No, Ma'am, That's Not History"

Lets let people make up their own minds and not rely on the likes of Brother Nibley.

[mike_uk]

From Wickipedia: "Although No Man Knows My History was a direct attack on many foundational Mormon beliefs about Joseph Smith, the LDS Church was slow to condemn the work even as the book went into a second printing. In 1946, The Improvement Era, the official periodical of the Church, said that many of the book's citations arose from doubtful sources and that the biography was "of no interest to Latter-day Saints who have correct knowledge of the history of Joseph Smith." The "Church News" section of the Deseret News provided a lengthy critique that acknowledged the biography's "fine literary style" and then denounced it as "a composite of all anti-Mormon books that have gone before."[22] BYU professor and LDS historian and apologist Hugh Nibley challenged Brodie in another booklet, No, Ma'am, That's Not History, asserting that Brodie had cited sources supportive only of her conclusions while conveniently ignoring others.[23] Brodie herself thought the Deseret News pamphlet "a well-written, clever piece of Mormon propaganda", but she dismissed the ultimately more popular No, Ma'am, That's Not History as "a flippant and shallow piece."

Of course, the church wont like it becasue it shows another side to JS monst wont know of. THat does not stop it being one of the finest biographies about JS available. The fact that Mrs Brodie had access to documents most people would not puts her in a good position. Im not surprised it was stated that the she used doubtful sources as that is always the view of the apologist. As for "Latter-day Saints who have correct knowledge of the history of Joseph Smith". They dont. The average LDS knows nothing of the events in these books.

Edited August 12, 2008 by mike_uk

[BenRaines]

LOL, now that is interesting. Let us rely on the likes of Fawn Brodie to make our decision of Joseph Smith but not Hugh Nibley. I thought each would be fair to study. :)

Just sharing an opposing view.

Ben Raines

[mike_uk]

LOL, now that is interesting. Let us rely on the likes of Fawn Brodie to make our decision of Joseph Smith but not Hugh Nibley. I thought each would be fair to study. :)

Just sharing an opposing view.

Ben Raines

No, of course you should not Rely on Mrs Brodie. I didn not even suggest that. I recommended a book about church history. What you are suggesting then is that Nibley has spoken so thats it. There are no other views to be had?

Have you read it?

Edited August 12, 2008 by mike_uk

[BenRaines]

I am not saying to not read it. What I am saying is if you are going to read something by someone who chose to pick their select pieces of the history of Joseph Smith by writing about him that it is important to also look at something written by someone with much more knowledge that I have about the documents or people that information came from.

As for your question "Have I read it" No I have not and have no interest in doing so. I find that it takes all my spare time just to study the scriptures and work at grasping an understand of them.

with best regards,

Ben Raines

[bytor2112]

Brother Joseph....Seer of a New Dispesation by Richard > and W. Cleon Skousen is a multi volume work and I think a better read than Fawn Brodie's book. Or maybe, the Myth Makers....by Hugh Nibley...I haven't read this one, but I understand it is very good.

I plan on reading Rough Stone Rolling, but I hear it has many mixed reviews. Some view it as anti others not so much.

[mike_uk]

I am not saying to not read it. What I am saying is if you are going to read something by someone who chose to pick their select pieces of the history of Joseph Smith by writing about him that it is important to also look at something written by someone with much more knowledge that I have about the documents or people that information came from.

As for your question "Have I read it" No I have not and have no interest in doing so. I find that it takes all my spare time just to study the scriptures and work at grasping an understand of them.

with best regards,

Ben Raines

Ok fine. I also recommend people to read both sides of the argument.

[mike_uk]

Brother Joseph....Seer of a New Dispesation by Richard > and W. Cleon Skousen is a multi volume work and I think a better read than Fawn Brodie's book. Or maybe, the Myth Makers....by Hugh Nibley...I haven't read this one, but I understand it is very good.

I plan on reading Rough Stone Rolling, but I hear it has many mixed reviews. Some view it as anti others not so much.

Rough Stone Rolling is not Anti at all Bytor. Richard Bushman is possibly the greatest church historian alive and knows pretty much al there is to know about JS. Mr Bushman is still a member and still maintains his testimony regardless.

[Jenamarie]

I would not call Rough-Stone "anti" at all. Those who do are those who would rather gloss over all of the uneasy parts of the church's history. Bushman faces them head on, and is very fair (IMO) in his approach to them. He also addresses "No Man..." in his book.

[bytor2112]

We're told polygamy will be ordained of God again some time in the future. Ok, that's also pretty straight forward. So we will have to deal with it again whether we like it or not. So I say let's just get used to the idea of it and stop freaking out about it. The practice has been a condition of humanity throughout history and, apparently, has been a condition of eternal beings throughout eternity. From what I gather about the peace and joy to be had in eternity, I'm guessing we will all come to find that this principle isn't as bad as most of us seem to think it is.

I remember back in school I dated a couple of different cheerleaders...pheew, very, um... is hot appropriate, here? If not, please forgive..anyhoo...and a couple of others at other schools. As I remember back, if only polygamy were still around..dagnabbit all!

I think many see polygamy as the opportunity for men to satisfy voracious sexual appetites instead of fulfilling a sacred command from Heavenly Father, who is the absolute epitomy of all that is Holy. I undertand that in the Eternal worlds I may have more than one Eternal companion, which is how my wife is referred to in my Patriarchal blessing. But, I am guessing that it won't occur for a very long time, until I have become someone very different than this flawed mortal that dwells in this fallen sphere. I know that it will be about a pure love and sacred holiness that only exists in the glorious kingdoms of our Father.

Edited August 12, 2008 by bytor2112

[breeb]

I looked into Fawn Brodie's book. I even read reviews on her other books as well and I personally dont find her as a credible source based off the reviews of her other books. Its been awhile since I looked at them so I cant remember exactly what was said or what book it was.

[HiJolly]

Could you tell me where your knowledge of these events came from? ... We're looking for good books that will help us. I know about Rough Stone Rolling and really want it, but did your knowlege come from any other books?

#1) Rough Stone Rolling. The author is a Stake Patriarch and very faithful.

#2) Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith. Fantastic read.

#3) In Sacred Loneliness. By Todd Compton. He's not very inspiring, and can't stand polygamy (so he tosses in some really off-the-mark personal editorial comments IMO) BUT -- the hard data he pulled together for this book is exceptional.

#4) Fawn Brodie??? I think not. It was the best book of its kind when written, even with her mind-reading. But it's garbage compared to the 3 books listed above.

HiJolly

[StrawberryFields]

I don't usually do this but I have read each reply in this thread.

I find this topic very interesting as I have polygamist ancestors that I am currently learning more about. I plan on reading two of the books recommended and maybe if a bunch of us read them there can be a thread man up to discuss them.

I find that the people who have commented on this thread to be quite respectful of a difficult topic. There has recently been a forum formed for "Church History" if you are interested I would like to learn more.

As I have said before I believe that with this age of information we are in (via the internet) we will have many more people become interested in all aspects of our gospel.

[Misshalfway]

I respect educating oneself about the polygamy "thing". It is a tough question to answer and deserves an honest representation. I will also say that polygamy is a question for any follower of the OT. And as much as I enjoy all the detail of history, I find President Hinckley's voice in my head talking about how polygamy is behind us and we should move forward and live in today. I think that I feel that here. The commandment of polygamy isn't a commandment for us to follow now as far as I can tell doesn't impact my life in the least. It is part of my history and ancestry. It is also part of this nations history and the Bible history too. I just think too much is made of this issue. And it would be nice to move on.

[mike_uk]

I respect educating oneself about the polygamy "thing". It is a tough question to answer and deserves an honest representation. I will also say that polygamy is a question for any follower of the OT. And as much as I enjoy all the detail of history, I find President Hinckley's voice in my head talking about how polygamy is behind us and we should move forward and live in today. I think that I feel that here. The commandment of polygamy isn't a commandment for us to follow now as far as I can tell doesn't impact my life in the least. It is part of my history and ancestry. It is also part of this nations history and the Bible history too. I just think too much is made of this issue. And it would be nice to move on.

Unfortunately it's an issue that will never be put to rest. Angels with swords, 14 year old girls, marrying women already married etc. Hard to just ignore these things and move on personally. However, no point in flogging it ccontinually here.

/signoff

[Misshalfway]

Unfortunately it's an issue that will never be put to rest. Angels with swords, 14 year old girls, marrying women already married etc. Hard to just ignore these things and move on personally. However, no point in flogging it ccontinually here.

/signoff

Perhaps it will be put to rest one person at a time. :)

And does the angels with swords thing really bother you??? I will tell you this, if God commanded me, he would need a sword to get me to obey!!!!!

Best wishes. Mike.

[guitarwizard]

Hmmm. Some very good books mentioned. Is there anyone in Arkansas here that would be willing to trade?

Did i just make everyone hate me because i am an Arkansan?

And, the angel with a sword thing? I find that encouraging. You know part of that was because of Emma though. When the angel came he didn't have the option of Polygamy and get killed by Emma OR wait it out.

What is so strange about the sword event?

[prisonchaplain]

First, let me thank everyone...I know that this issue can be difficult, and often raises defenses, because it is a common historical stomping ground for enemies of your church.

Here's my view, as an evangelical, on polygamy itself: No, it is not specifically condemned in the Old Testament. It was allowed, and God sometimes had a hand it it. Nevertheless, Jesus seems to imply that is is not God's best--that the ideal is one man and one woman becoming one flesh--as described in Genesis 2.

I wouldn't condemn it, and it's fun to discuss, imagine, etc. But, ultimately, such a matter, especially as a historical practice, would not ultimately lead me to belief or disbelief in your church.

[rameumptom]

Nor should it be the primary thing that leads a person to or away from the LDS Church. As with any religion or organization, one must view the fruits of the organization and view it as a whole. Every religion has difficult issues in its history. Even Moses was commanded to commit genocide (from a 21st century viewpoint). If we were to judge the entire Judaeo-Christian by this one event in the Bible with Moses, we would truly get a distorted view of the writings within it.

However, when we consider Moses' wars within context of the entire Bible, it helps us to see it in context. And it helps us to realize that the world is not always a pretty and clean cut affair, even when it comes to prophets.

[Islander]

Like PC says, it is an old, faded but often exhumed argument by those only desiring to contend and argue.

I think it would be plain and simple hsitorical revisionism to try and psychoanalyze Lea and Rachel's relationship with Jacob and the domestic tension and intrigue that came from it. Not only that, there were other concubines not mentioned in the saga more than in passing.

In summary, we should just compile the threads, links by topics and point to the place (FAQ, topics and issues). The interested will go and read until they are satisfied (or not) and the agitators will show their true colors rather quickly.

Just a suggestion

[lindsayjane]

I find it maddening when someone comes to a thread, reads it, and then finds the subject of the thread maddening. If it is “absolutely maddening,” which really sounds painful, I suggest you don’t read the thread. That’s how I get by.

<snip>

That depends on what you mean by “care”? It is not only a fascinating aspect of the Church's history, it is part the American West's history as well. I get it that you aren't as interested as I, but I promise you, it knocks my socks off to read about Emma and Eliza Roxy having it out on the stairs! (Go Emma!)

<snip>

Okay, I’m being stupid, especially because I can’t stand Mel Gibson. But hopefully you get my point that SOME of us like to discuss polygamy, because it is an integral piece to the Mormon experience, maddening or otherwise.

I guess I have to clarify my post. I don't find the history of polygamy maddening at all. In fact, it's quite fascinating (which is why I continue to read these threads at risk of "painful" consequences ). I enjoy reading the accounts and speculation and I can picture these people's lives and struggles to a point. (I'm trying to be empathetic. Really, I am.)

What is maddening to me is how mentally and emotionally heated so many people become over the issue and how, for some, the church seems to fall under it's weight alone. But I don't see this issue as being very different --from a spiritual standpoint at least-- than any other difficult or controversial commandment. It has had and will always have its challenges, its potential for misuse and misunderstanding, and its vehement opposers. But as fascinating as the historical study is, I don't believe the whole religion stands or falls depending on that history. I think there is more emotionally subjective judgement going on than objective, historical analysis.

I DO recognize I am unusual in my emotional complacency and I apologize for being insensitive to the majority who would struggle with the practice of polygamy. I have a very passive nature and, perhaps, unique experiences with love and relationships, including experiencing a startling lack of jealousy or possessiveness when my ex-husband was unfaithful (and I did love him deeply, that wasn't the problem). The idea of polygamy has simply never offended me. In fact, there have been many times in my life when I've wished the practice would return. But I know that opinion is not popular so I usually just keep my mouth shut about the topic altogether. So when I say I "don't care" I really mean I don't care that the practice exists, not that I don't care about the historical details of its existence.

[funkymonkey]

Most of the people I have met that had little experience with Mormons thought I should have been living in a compound in Texas. They had no idea that Mormons today don't really practice polygamy.

And if your only exposure to "Mormonism" is what you see on TV... living in a compound in the desert, inbreeding, limited contact with the modern world, etc. The FLDS call themselves "Mormons", they too believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God

...If I were them, I'd think Mormons were pretty freaky too.

[mike_uk]

Perhaps it will be put to rest one person at a time. :)

And does the angels with swords thing really bother you??? I will tell you this, if God commanded me, he would need a sword to get me to obey!!!!!

Best wishes. Mike.

Yea it bothers me in bucket loads but thats just me! Purely becasue it sounds rediculously far fetched. As a result of that so called angel Jospeh married kids and took other mens wives. Please, how can that be a good? I fail to see.

I understand you all think he is a prophet and was an amazing guy. I think he was brilliant too but I also think he spun that story and started the whole poygamy thing to cover something up. I dont believe God had anything to do with it.

Maybe that angel did appear, maybe it was not from God? Another thought.

And onother thing, Polygamy is only one of the many reason that I have considered having my name removed and certainly not the sole reason.

Edited August 13, 2008 by mike_uk

[Misshalfway]

Its all good Mike. I have struggled with all of this too. And I don't suppose you will be the last.

For what it is worth, I will share this. I hate the idea of polygamy. It isn't exactly one of those practices that makes me feel respected as a woman and frankly has caused me to question God. BUT, I must be honest too. I was teaching a gospel doctrine class from the D&C. The Spirit was strong that day and that room full of about 70 people. Polygamy was a very small talking point on my outline and I came to that part of the lesson. I felt the Spirit randomly tell me to testify of polygamy. I obeyed. That room was filled with even more Spirit and many commented to me about the experience.

I don't understand polygamy. My earthy brain and the twisting of it by the children of men doesn't help me see it in its purest form. But I know what I felt that day. And I trust that over my very human limits to understand.

And the Angel thing makes perfect sense to me. Joseph didn't want that to be the commandment. He wouldn't tell the brethren or the church and finally the Lord had to force the issue. Thus the angel and the sword.

I hope that helps.