Two new essays from Gospel Topics Essays

[Dravin]

Generally speaking,  it seems like we still struggling with the concept of polygamy in our Church history and I mean, us, as members of the Church specially related to how we go about teaching non-members about it. We seem to want to make it sound "better" (for lack of a better word) because we seem to be afraid about what people would say about us.

 

 

On my mission this became such an issue that my Mission President felt like he needed to come out and correct the missionaries because they were going so far in their downplaying and backpedaling that they wandering into what he felt was false teachings. I remember engaging with more than one fellow missionary over the subject because I felt they were getting as close as possible to the line of saying, "Polygamy was wrong." without actually crossing the line.

[classylady]

I wish I had known my great-grandparents and great-great grandparents.  Historically speaking this is not so far in the past.  My maternal and paternal grandparents were children from polygamous marriages.  They freely talked about it, and it was always in a positive light. There was no shame in it.  In fact, they were proud of it.  I'm also very proud of my heritage. Why there is embarrassment about it, I don't know.  I, personally, would be more ashamed about living a promiscuous lifestyle with many different partners rather than being in a polygamous marriage.  But, then, in our historical past I believe that polygamy was approved by God. and I don't believe that polygamy was being unchaste.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think any serious Historian knows we do not have conclusive evidence that proves that Smith's marriages were sexual. As a matter of fact, Helen continued living with her parents. Personally, I believe there is a possibility some were indeed sexual but it is just of course pure speculation on my part.

IIRC, several of the women who testified at the Temple Lot trial were about as explicit as Victorian women could reasonably be expected to be. I do think some of Smith's marriages were sexual; I just don't think we can generalize from that to conclude that ALL of them were.

Generally speaking, it seems like we still struggling with the concept of polygamy in our Church history and I mean, us, as members of the Church specially related to how we go about teaching non-members about it. We seem to want to make it sound "better" (for lack of a better word) because we seem to be afraid about what people would say about us.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Mormons are utterly unfamiliar with D&C 132, or--worse--are familiar with it but are shocked to hear that its recipient was actually a polygamist himself. If I'm ever a general authority, and I want to hide a particularly bothersome issue . . . I think I'll write it up and canonize it. Then no one will ever hear about it again! Muahahahahaha . . .

As an example, the dates of birth for Helen Mar Kimball are publicly known (August 22nd, 1828) yet in FamilySearch.org her birth date appears as "about 1820" and her marriage date as "May, 1843". I know exactly what "about" means, but again, what exactly are we trying to do here? Make it look like she got married at 23? Same for Sarah Ann Whitney who was 17 when she married Smith, again her birth date is publicly known (22nd March 1825) but in the same web site it appears as "about 1820") and her marriage date as "27th July 1842". Was she 22 when she married Joseph? No, she wasn't.

I see your larger point and agree with it; but it should also be noted that FamilySearch is frankly a mess. I searched for a Helen Kimball married to a Joseph Smith and got 190 hits--and the first hundred are definitely our girl and many of those do have the 1828 birthdate. Someone needs to do some MASSIVE merging--but now that the Church has basically threatened to yank the FamilySearch access of members caught accessing family lines unrelated to themselves; I doubt it will get done anytime soon. Edited October 26, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[spamlds]

From 2007 to 2012, I wrote literally hundreds of articles for the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism blog and for the Examiner which address anti-Mormon attacks on the Church.  I am gratified to see that the Church has taken upon itself the burden of handling these topics.  It does it with greater clarity and authority than any apologetics writer. 

 

It has always seemed to me that every president of the Church has a "theme" that becomes his trademark, like "every member a missionary" or "lengthen your stride."  Ezra Taft Benson didn't have a catch phrase so much as his emphasis on reading and teaching from the Book of Mormon transformed missionary work.  President Hinckley advanced the cause of Zion in so many ways, but he'll always be remembered for the goal of building 100 temples.  I think President Monson's tenure will be remembered for "Hastening the Work" and an unprecedented era of transparency.  When the Church disarms its critics in this manner, it strengthens its position.  Unapologetically declaring truth seems to have that effect.

[mordorbund]

I think any serious Historian knows we do not have conclusive evidence that proves that Smith's marriages were sexual. As a matter of fact, Helen continued living with her parents. Personally, I believe there is a possibility some were indeed sexual but it is just of course pure speculation on my part.

 

 

For my own edification, do you have a source for hte Helen statement?

[garryw]

 

 

we do not have conclusive evidence that proves that Smith's marriages were sexual.

 

I suggest the Book of Mormon is the evidence.  

 

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

Does the Book of Mormon offer a non-sexual reason for the commandment of polygamy?  All I can find is this seed reason.

 

And of course the sworn testimony of several of his wives would be conclusive under the Mosaic law.  That's conclusive enough to condemn, even unto death.

 

 In the mouth of two or three witnesses 

[The Folk Prophet]

I suggest the Book of Mormon is the evidence.  

 

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

Does the Book of Mormon offer a non-sexual reason for the commandment of polygamy?  All I can find is this seed reason.

 

And of course the sworn testimony of several of his wives would be conclusive under the Mosaic law.  That's conclusive enough to condemn, even unto death.

 

 In the mouth of two or three witnesses 

 

It's decidedly more complicated than you're trying to make it.

[Suzie]

For my own edification, do you have a source for hte Helen statement?

 

You mean the statement about living with her parents after the sealing to Smith? You can check lds.org about Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo as well as Anderson and Faulring review on Todd M. Compton's book.

 

Personally, a big indicator that Helen's sealing to Joseph was not sexual is the fact that she described the sealing for "Eternity only". As a matter of fact, a few wives of Joseph described their sealing that way. Others, described it as "For life and eternity" but we do not have enough information as to what exactly it entitled, although as I shared earlier on, I believe some involved sexual intimacy and there are several accounts that could support such conjecture.

 

[Suzie]

I suggest the Book of Mormon is the evidence.  

 

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

 

Does the Book of Mormon offer a non-sexual reason for the commandment of polygamy?  All I can find is this seed reason.

 

And of course the sworn testimony of several of his wives would be conclusive under the Mosaic law.  That's conclusive enough to condemn, even unto death.

 

 In the mouth of two or three witnesses 

 

I do not reject the idea that some of these marriages involved sexual intimacy. I just don't think each one of them did.

[Guest]

As of now, there are 3 people/families in our ward, all born and raised in the Church, who has left the church claiming "they didn't know about JS history of polygamy" and that they felt they were "consciously deceived by the church" because they weren't taught this history from the pulpit...

 

One was an RM and was the Ward Mission Leader and his wife the YW Pres.  The other is in the EQ Presidency and his wife in the Primary Presidency.  The other is the wife of a member of the bishopric.

 

I still cannot grasp the idea that somebody born in the Church doesn't know anything about JS polygamy... I mean, it's only in D&C... wouldn't you be curious as to who these women are that he married?

Edited October 30, 2014 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

As of now, there are 3 people/families in our ward, all born and raised in the Church, who has left the church claiming "they didn't know about JS history of polygamy" and that they felt they were "consciously deceived by the church" because they weren't taught this history from the pulpit...

 

One was an RM and was the Ward Mission Leader and his wife the YW Pres.  The other is in the EQ Presidency and his wife in the Primary Presidency.  The other is the wife of a member of the bishopric.

 

I still cannot grasp the idea that somebody born in the Church doesn't know anything about JS polygamy... I mean, it's only in D&C... wouldn't you be curious as to who these women are that he married?

 

Was this directly because of the recent essays?

[garryw]

 

 

I still cannot grasp the idea that somebody born in the Church doesn't know anything about JS polygamy

 

I think outside the US there is even less knowledge about it.  I was in South America as a missionary and of the 1000+ people I discussed the church with, only one knew of any connection between the church and any form of polygamy.  He had committed to baptism until he read the definition of Mormon in the portuguese dictionary which apparently mentions polygamy.  The D&C hasnt been translated to other languages as quickly as the BoM and even then, apparently nobody bothers to read section 132 which specifically commands Emma Smith by name to accept Joseph's wives or "be destroyed".  That's a pretty big hint.

[omegaseamaster75]

As of now, there are 3 people/families in our ward, all born and raised in the Church, who has left the church claiming "they didn't know about JS history of polygamy" and that they felt they were "consciously deceived by the church" because they weren't taught this history from the pulpit...

 

One was an RM and was the Ward Mission Leader and his wife the YW Pres.  The other is in the EQ Presidency and his wife in the Primary Presidency.  The other is the wife of a member of the bishopric.

 

I still cannot grasp the idea that somebody born in the Church doesn't know anything about JS polygamy... I mean, it's only in D&C... wouldn't you be curious as to who these women are that he married?

I would be interested to know if this is a result of the essays. If it is to me it sounds like a cop out. They were never committed and this provided the excuse needed.

 

The other side of the coin is that as a life long member we are not taught about the life of JS. From his birth to his death we are only taught the "good" things about the man. From his youth to the translation of the book of Mormon which is not taught correctly, to the real reason behind his incarceration in Carthage and his death. The information is not hidden but you need to look for it and verify your sources.

 

When I look at JS I look at the person as a whole, JS was a man of many flaws as we all are. Even with all of his mortal flaws he was still able to accomplish great things.

[The Folk Prophet]

JS was a man of many flaws as we all are.

 

Although this is a completely accurate statement, it strikes me that most people's views of Joseph Smith's flaws are probably inaccurate. We really don't have any idea what Joseph's flaws were and were not. I mean, I have my ideas. You have yours. Etc. But as likely as not, we're both wrong.

[omegaseamaster75]

Although this is a completely accurate statement, it strikes me that most people's views of Joseph Smith's flaws are probably inaccurate. We really don't have any idea what Joseph's flaws were and were not. I mean, I have my ideas. You have yours. Etc. But as likely as not, we're both wrong.

Probably we will disagree on what his flaws were/are.

 

One thing we can agree on is that he did have them. I think a large portion of the membership lives in a bubble that is very easy to prick and pop.

[Guest]

Was this directly because of the recent essays?

 

 

I would be interested to know if this is a result of the essays. If it is to me it sounds like a cop out. They were never committed and this provided the excuse needed.

 

Nope.  One couple left the Church claiming polygamy to be the trigger last year.  They talked like Larry Flynt is like Mother Theresa compared to Joseph Smith.  The rest talked to them and followed suit...

 

They tried talking to me, and although they didn't say so, it sure felt like they thought I would be just as disgusted by the things they were telling me because I'm a "logical thinker and not a blind follower"... I guess they don't understand where I came from - I mean, I was a devout Catholic School Catholic!  The skeletons in the LDS closet look like marshmallow man on Halloween compared to the skeletons in the Catholic closet... and being the "logical thinker" that I am, I wouldn't have asked to be baptized without first digging into the LDS closet...

Edited October 30, 2014 by anatess

[The Folk Prophet]

One thing we can agree on is that he did have them. I think a large portion of the membership lives in a bubble that is very easy to prick and pop.

 

Funnily enough (well...probably not) I disagree. This is something you hear said a lot. But prove it. I find, from my experience, that the membership at large is quite well aware of things, do not live in a bubble at all, and that those who do (obviously some do) are more the exception than the rule.

[omegaseamaster75]

Our levels of proof will be thorough our own experiences. I know that if I go into relief society and ask the group who was Eliza R Snows first husband I would be shocked if 2 people knew (the RS pres knows because I told her) and she was surprised.

 

Before the Essays how many in your ward knew how prolific JS plural marriages were? sure the info is out there but it is not common knowledge. Or why are we not taught how JS really "translated" the Book of Mormon. 

 

Survey some members in your ward and be prepared to be shocked by the lack of knowledge of church history and the formation of our religion.

[The Folk Prophet]

Our levels of proof will be thorough our own experiences. I know that if I go into relief society and ask the group who was Eliza R Snows first husband I would be shocked if 2 people knew (the RS pres knows because I told her) and she was surprised.

 

Before the Essays how many in your ward knew how prolific JS plural marriages were? sure the info is out there but it is not common knowledge. Or why are we not taught how JS really "translated" the Book of Mormon. 

 

Survey some members in your ward and be prepared to be shocked by the lack of knowledge of church history and the formation of our religion.

 

Well, that convinces me then. 

 

 

I am curious. How about we run a test over the next couple of weeks just for fun. Choose 100 random people in your ward and ask them point blank if they were aware of Joseph Smith's wives prior to the church essays. (The recent release of the church essays is a great way to bring it up). I'll do the same. Record their yes or no responses. I'll do the same. Then we'll compare notes.

[mordorbund]

Oh, I thought you two were going to talk about how easy it is to prick and pop that bubble. I'd daresay that the majority of members just don't care and that's not a bad thing. Joseph translated The Book of Mormon "by the gift and power of God". Hyrum invited him to describe the experience in a conference and Joseph just left it at that statement. A few are curious about the mechanics and even fewer are shaken up when they learn of them, but by and large it's not something members care about (beyond the gift and power of God aspect). Subjects like this come up periodically in Church publications, and even in the Church curricula, but then most people forget about them because they just don't care. So pop "the bubble" and then follow up in a year to see if that bubble is still there.

[The Folk Prophet]

Oh, I thought you two were going to talk about how easy it is to prick and pop that bubble. I'd daresay that the majority of members just don't care and that's not a bad thing. Joseph translated The Book of Mormon "by the gift and power of God". Hyrum invited him to describe the experience in a conference and Joseph just left it at that statement. A few are curious about the mechanics and even fewer are shaken up when they learn of them, but by and large it's not something members care about (beyond the gift and power of God aspect). Subjects like this come up periodically in Church publications, and even in the Church curricula, but then most people forget about them because they just don't care. So pop "the bubble" and then follow up in a year to see if that bubble is still there.

 

It's true. While I hold the strong opinion, for example, that Joseph did not have physical relations with those of his plural wives who were married to other men, if incontrovertible proof came out that he did, I honestly just would not care. Not beyond, "Hmm. Interesting. Guess I was wrong on that one. The gospel is still true."

[omegaseamaster75]

Well, that convinces me then. 

 

 

I am curious. How about we run a test over the next couple of weeks just for fun. Choose 100 random people in your ward and ask them point blank if they were aware of Joseph Smith's wives prior to the church essays. (The recent release of the church essays is a great way to bring it up). I'll do the same. Record their yes or no responses. I'll do the same. Then we'll compare notes.

I think everyone is aware of his prior wives on some level or other. What is missing is the prolific number of women he married, the number of women married to other men, his hiding of marriages from his wife Emma. 

 

Individually these statements sound scandalous on the surface and I suspect many members would/will be shocked 

 

I will ask 100 members of my ward these questions and record their answers

 

1. Did you know that JS  married women who were already married?

 

2. Did you know he hid some of his marriages from his wife Emma?

 

I am sure I could develop more questions, but these 2 will do.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think everyone is aware of his prior wives on some level or other. What is missing is the prolific number of women he married, the number of women married to other men, his hiding of marriages from his wife Emma. 

 

Individually these statements sound scandalous on the surface and I suspect many members would/will be shocked 

 

I will ask 100 members of my ward these questions and record their answers

 

1. Did you know that JS  married women who were already married?

 

2. Did you know he hid some of his marriages from his wife Emma?

 

I am sure I could develop more questions, but these 2 will do.

 

I will try to do the same. We'll compare notes. It'll be interesting.

[garryw]

And do these:

 

"did you know that JS was in Carthage jail on charges that he ordered the destruction of a printing press?"

 

"did you know he had the press destroyed because it printed that he practiced polygamy?"

 

I hear people say that he was martyred for the BoM or some other reason.  He was martyred for polygamy.

[The Folk Prophet]

"did you know he had the press destroyed because it printed that he practiced polygamy?"

 

I hear people say that he was martyred for the BoM or some other reason.  He was martyred for polygamy.

 

This is quite the oversimplification of something much, much more complex.