Joseph Smith Papers

[Blossom76]

As a few of you know I"m super into church history, I've been reading the Jospeh Smith Papers because a lot of members told me to trust them over the 'History of the Church Books' and I've already  found something interesting!

This is written in 1843 and it clearly says the church does condone polygamy

as pertaining to the Law of the priesthood if any man espouse a virgin, & desire to espouse another and the first give her [2 words illegible] if he [3 words illegible] & they are virgins, & have vowed to no other man, then is he justified, he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him for he Cannot Commit adultery with that, that belongeth unto him & to none else & if he have ten virgins given <unto> him by thee this Law, he Cannot Commit adultery for they belong to him, & they are given unto him therefore, <is he justified> 

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-12-july-1843-dc-132/8

This was written in 1844, it clearly says the church is against polygamy 

4 All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptised into this church, should be held sacred and fulfiled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1844/441 

But the church was practicing polygamy then, from 1831 until 1890ish, so that's not exactly honest.  This leads me back to my previous problem I had with "History of the Church' being I can't trust what the church writes about its own history.

Has anyone else looked at this before?

[anatess2]

Of course a lot of people have.  It is taught in Church after all.

The Church practiced polygamy - with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young having several wives - and then the Church ended the practice.  Very simple.  Polygamy on earth is a practice.  But if you understand Eternal Marriages, you will understand that both statements above DOES NOT CHANGE the doctrine of Eternal Marriage.  Marriage does not end at death.  Therefore, somebody who gets sealed to another after his first spouse dies STILL has more than one wife.  The practice of not having more than one LIVING spouse is, therefore, an earthly practice - something made for the benefit of mortal existence... like, to put the Saints under the protection of the US Constitution, for example.  Teachings that are for the benefit of mortal existence may change according to the state of man in mortal existence.  Eternal principles do not change.

Edited February 8, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

As a few of you know I"m super into church history, ...

1) When you paste from other sites, the font and size will be different.  And it may not be the size and type you intended.
2) As you post, at the bottom of the screen you'll see a notification bar asking if you'd like to paste as plain text.  Please do so.
3) Once pasted, make modifications as you see fit.

Posting large letters like this makes it seem like you're YELLING.

6 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

Has anyone else looked at this before?

Yes, of course we have.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Guest

[NeedleinA]

6 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

found something interesting!

so that's not exactly honest...I can't trust what the church writes about its own history.

From "interesting" to untrustworthy all in a single post, hum.
If you simply leave it at "interesting", you might actually get more people willing to help you. 
From questioning to accusing... again

Edited February 8, 2018 by NeedleinA

[Jane_Doe]

@Blossom76, do you realize that during the Navuoo time, a person could be sealed to another while simultaneously NOT being married to them?

Our understanding of sealings, their purpose, and application was not revealed all at once, but over time.   Please ask to get the full story before (seemingly) concluding that the entire LDS Church is lying to you (that is the vibe given off by your OP and it comes off as quite an attack).  I know you don't mean it to come off as an attack, so I'm letting you know that what you're trying to communicate isn't what's coming across.  

Edited February 8, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Just_A_Guy]

6 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

As a few of you know I"m super into church history, I've been reading the Jospeh Smith Papers because a lot of members told me to trust them over the 'History of the Church Books' and I've already  found something interesting!

This is written in 1843 and it clearly says the church does condone polygamy

as pertaining to the Law of the priesthood if any man espouse a virgin, & desire to espouse another and the first give her [2 words illegible] if he [3 words illegible] & they are virgins, & have vowed to no other man, then is he justified, he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him for he Cannot Commit adultery with that, that belongeth unto him & to none else & if he have ten virgins given <unto> him by thee this Law, he Cannot Commit adultery for they belong to him, & they are given unto him therefore, <is he justified> 

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-12-july-1843-dc-132/8

This was written in 1844, it clearly says the church is against polygamy 

4 All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptised into this church, should be held sacred and fulfiled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death when either is at liberty to marry again.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/doctrine-and-covenants-1844/441 

But the church was practicing polygamy then, from 1831 until 1890ish, so that's not exactly honest.  This leads me back to my previous problem I had with "History of the Church' being I can't trust what the church writes about its own history.

Has anyone else looked at this before?

The “Article on Marriage” you cite from the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants was rammed through a conference of the Church for approval by Oliver Cowdery in 1831, at a time when Joseph Smith was away on a preaching trip (to Michigan, if memory serves).  Cowdery had recently become aware of Smith’s first plural marriage to Fanny Alger, was incensed by it, and was trying to box Joseph Smith out of doing anything similar in the future.  

Smith, on his return, chose not to swim against the current; and didn’t teach plural marriage again until 1842.  Even in 1844, there were barely two dozen men in Nauvoo (out of a population of nearly 10,000) engaged in the practice.  

You’re absolutely right that no statement an entity makes about itself should be necessarily be taken at face value; though going further and suggesting that every problematic statement is by default a nefarious attempt at deception would be inaccurate as well.

[Just_A_Guy]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

@Blossom76, do you realize that during the Navuoo time, a person could be sealed to another while simultaneously NOT being married to them?

Our understanding of sealings, their purpose, and application was not revealed all at once, but over time.   

I’ve heard some writers draw this distinction; but I think it goes too far to say that *none* of the Nauvoo sealings were considered marital in nature.  Some no doubt were platonic, but we also have an awful lot of women saying that they were Joseph’s wife “in very deed”

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

...Posting large letters like this makes it seem like you're YELLING....

No it doesn't.

M.

[bytebear]

Yes, the church condones plural marriage.  It also condones animal sacrifice, circumcision, stoning adulterers, cutting off the heads of opponents, etc., etc...   But only when God commands it. 

[zil]

It seems the OP is ignoring me, so this won't do her any good, but for anyone else who cares: It appears she is just reading the text directly.  If my memory is correct, one of the TV episodes the project has done has the historians discussing this discrepancy.  I doubt the OP will like their explanation, whatever it was (I can't remember details), but it's there should anyone else wish to go watch the episode (not sure how you'd figure out which episode it was).

[Blossom76]

4 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

From "interesting" to untrustworthy all in a single post, hum.
If you simply leave it at "interesting", you might actually get more people willing to help you. 
From questioning to accusing... again

I'm not accusing anything, and it is interesting AND it does raise questions to do with trusting church publications, because its inconsistent - again

[Blossom76]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

1) When you paste from other sites, the font and size will be different.  And it may not be the size and type you intended.
2) As you post, at the bottom of the screen you'll see a notification bar asking if you'd like to paste as plain text.  Please do so.
3) Once pasted, make modifications as you see fit.

Posting large letters like this makes it seem like you're YELLING.

Yes, of course we have.

Thanks, I'll try to do that, I also posted that without my glasses on lol, if you have looked at it can you please share your feelings and opinion on it with me? I just don't understand why the church was outright denying polygamy when the prophet himself was engaged in the practice at the time.

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I'm not accusing anything

I get that 100%.  But regardless the way you're phrasing things comes off as an attack.  Particularly the "not trustworthy" wording-- it comes off as accusing of lying and deception, which particularly hurts when people/Church are trying super hard to be super honest and transparent.  Perhaps better phrasing to better communicate the desired question? 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Blossom76]

4 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

@Blossom76, do you realize that during the Navuoo time, a person could be sealed to another while simultaneously NOT being married to them?

Our understanding of sealings, their purpose, and application was not revealed all at once, but over time.   Please ask to get the full story before (seemingly) concluding that the entire LDS Church is lying to you (that is the vibe given off by your OP and it comes off as quite an attack).  I know you don't mean it to come off as an attack, so I'm letting you know that what you're trying to communicate isn't what's coming across.  

I'm not attacking anything and I'm not concluding that the entire church is lying to me about everything it says.  But I am looking very sincerely and seriously at the history of the church, using church publications and there are a lot of inconsistencies.

Quite honestly I am sick of the attitude I am getting from most members when I post something.  And I am trying to get the full picture.  That's why I'm posting my questions!

[Blossom76]

3 hours ago, bytebear said:

Yes, the church condones plural marriage.  It also condones animal sacrifice, circumcision, stoning adulterers, cutting off the heads of opponents, etc., etc...   But only when God commands it. 

That's exactly my point, it was allowed by God in 1844 and the Joseph Smith Papers say that it was not.  That's inconsistent and also its not true

[Blossom76]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The “Article on Marriage” you cite from the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants was rammed through a conference of the Church for approval by Oliver Cowdery in 1831, at a time when Joseph Smith was away on a preaching trip (to Michigan, if memory serves).  Cowdery had recently become aware of Smith’s first plural marriage to Fanny Alger, was incensed by it, and was trying to box Joseph Smith out of doing anything similar in the future.  

Smith, on his return, chose not to swim against the current; and didn’t teach plural marriage again until 1842.  Even in 1844, there were barely two dozen men in Nauvoo (out of a population of nearly 10,000) engaged in the practice.  

You’re absolutely right that no statement an entity makes about itself should be necessarily be taken at face value; though going further and suggesting that every problematic statement is by default a nefarious attempt at deception would be inaccurate as well.

Thank you, that's actually an informative answer!  I can understand why Jospeh would have done that if that's how it happened.  I don't agree with it, to me, if God said 'do this' then there is nothing to be ashamed of and Oliver Cowdery can just 'grow a pair deal with it'  BUT I can understand why Joseph would have denied it.

And I'm not saying every problematic statement is an attempt at deception, I'm just looking at the history and asking questions when I see something that makes no sense to me.

 

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, zil said:

It seems the OP is ignoring me, so this won't do her any good, but for anyone else who cares: It appears she is just reading the text directly.  If my memory is correct, one of the TV episodes the project has done has the historians discussing this discrepancy.  I doubt the OP will like their explanation, whatever it was (I can't remember details), but it's there should anyone else wish to go watch the episode (not sure how you'd figure out which episode it was).

Well that's very judgy isn't it? And by the way I live in Australia mate, I wasn't ignoring you - I was asleep and from what I can tell this is the first post of yours in this thread?

And I've love to see that TV episode, that would be awesome, where do I even watch them?

[Blossom76]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Of course a lot of people have.  It is taught in Church after all.

The Church practiced polygamy - with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young having several wives - and then the Church ended the practice.  Very simple.  Polygamy on earth is a practice.  But if you understand Eternal Marriages, you will understand that both statements above DOES NOT CHANGE the doctrine of Eternal Marriage.  Marriage does not end at death.  Therefore, somebody who gets sealed to another after his first spouse dies STILL has more than one wife.  The practice of not having more than one LIVING spouse is, therefore, an earthly practice - something made for the benefit of mortal existence... like, to put the Saints under the protection of the US Constitution, for example.  Teachings that are for the benefit of mortal existence may change according to the state of man in mortal existence.  Eternal principles do not change.

Thats not what I asked, I didn't get why in 1843 - Polygamy all good, go for it, in 1844 - polygamy bad don't do it, even though they still were.

[Blossom76]

14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I get that 100%.  But regardless the way you're phrasing things comes off as an attack.  Perhaps better phrasing to better communicate the desired question? 

I quoted the Joseph Smith papers and asked if anyone else had seen what I was looking at, I tried to be as nice as possible, it was hardly an attack.  I'll try to 'sugar coat' simple facts more heavily in the future.  The only thing I can see someone might have a problem with was 'I can't trust what the church writes about its own history' and seriously from what I can tell, I still can't!  Its kinda like 'well it says this, but we had to say that because people would have had a hissy fit over it if we told the truth'.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

I quoted the Joseph Smith papers and asked if anyone else had seen what I was looking at, I tried to be as nice as possible, it was hardly an attack.  I'll try to 'sugar coat' simple facts more heavily in the future.  The only thing I can see someone might have a problem with was 'I can't trust what the church writes about its own history' and seriously from what I can tell, I still can't!  Its kinda like 'well it says this, but we had to say that because people would have had a hissy fit over it if we told the truth'.

No need to sugar coat things, just skip the "not trustworthy" comments- that's what's coming off as an accusation of being deceptive when people are trying SUPER hard to be transparent and honest about everything.  Phrasing like "this seems inconsistent, could you help me understand it better", comes across as conveying the message you're actually trying to say.

(Whew- man, communication can be such a pain sometime... where's that mind reading machine I asked R&D to cook up for me, it would make life SO much blasted easier!)  

[Blossom76]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

No need to sugar coat things, just skip the "not trustworthy" comments- that's what's coming off as an accusation of being deceptive when people are trying SUPER hard to be transparent and honest about everything.  Phrasing like "this seems inconsistent, could you help me understand it better", comes across as conveying the message you're actually trying to say.

(Whew- man, communication can be such a pain sometime... where's that mind reading machine I asked R&D to cook up for me, it would make life SO much blasted easier!)  

At the same time I am entitled to say what I'm thinking and feeling, it doesn't just seem inconsistent, it is inconsistent.  I am tired of being told I'm 'attacking' this church, I'm not but I am looking into it properly before making a life long decision.  

[zil]

9 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Well that's very judgy isn't it? And by the way I live in Australia mate, I wasn't ignoring you - I was asleep and from what I can tell this is the first post of yours in this thread?

And I've love to see that TV episode, that would be awesome, where do I even watch them?

Not "judgy" - deductivey - this site has an "ignore" feature which allows one to ignore posts by a specific user.  You didn't respond to relevant posts I made in another thread (possibly two other threads, I've not tried to keep track) which lead me to conclude you had elected to ignore my posts (I know you're in Oz and I actually have a clock on my computer which tells me what time it is in Sydney, because I have friends there, so that was not a factor in my conclusion).  Clearly that conclusion was erroneous.

As for where to find the videos, on the JosephSmithPapers.org website, there's a menu at the top.  One of the options is "Media" and under that, one of the options is "Videos" - they appear to be there, though I couldn't say for certain that every episode that's been on TV here is listed there (not sure how I'd figure that out), but it seems safe to assume they are - or that they are found at one of the links at the bottom of that page (one goes to BYU-TV - which is where I saw them - and the other to YouTube).

[Grunt]

32 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I get that 100%.  But regardless the way you're phrasing things comes off as an attack.  Particularly the "not trustworthy" wording-- it comes off as accusing of lying and deception, which particularly hurts when people/Church are trying super hard to be super honest and transparent.  Perhaps better phrasing to better communicate the desired question? 

This is what I was trying to say in the last thread.

[Grunt]

33 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I'm not attacking anything and I'm not concluding that the entire church is lying to me about everything it says.  But I am looking very sincerely and seriously at the history of the church, using church publications and there are a lot of inconsistencies.

Quite honestly I am sick of the attitude I am getting from most members when I post something.  And I am trying to get the full picture.  That's why I'm posting my questions!

I think you're getting the attitude because of how you're interpreting some people's posts and how they're interpreting yours.  I think it's a miscommunication.

[zil]

19 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

it doesn't just seem inconsistent, it is inconsistent.

The quoted portions of the two texts, when examined alone, are indeed inconsistent.  However, those two texts alone cannot relate the entire story.  The people, culture, contexts, reasons for writing the two inconsistent texts are not conveyed by the text alone.  How much of that can be reconstructed through additional documentation from the time, I don't know.   As mentioned before, I'm almost certain the historians on the project addressed this issue in one of the episodes (meaning that there are at least some other documents which shed some light on events surrounding these things).  Also, as mentioned, my memory could be faulty, and, I'm sorry, I don't know how to determine which episode had what I'm remembering (I kinda doubt the episodes are linked to mentioned documents in any way).

In other words, while they are inconsistent, it may be that reality itself was not inconsistent and the inconsistency of these two texts is not an accurate reflection of reality, which was not itself (as) inconsistent...

Edited February 8, 2018 by zil