Joseph Smith Papers

[zil]

28 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?

It occurs to me that maybe it was my comment about you not liking the explanation from the video that you're classifying as "judgy" (unsure since that's not the part of my post you addressed directly).  Anywho, in case it is, I also consider that conclusion deductivey rather than judgy.  Based on your reaction to explanations in other threads on other topics, it seems reasonable to assume you will react in a similar manner to explanations of this discrepancy.

[mordorbund]

A relevant link: https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

 

[warnerfranklin]

Blossom76, I’m glad you like the Joseph Smith Papers, I also found them very helpful after my conversion in explaining church history. 

With polygamy my own studies show that Depending upon the time it is going on it may or may not be acceptable. King David had eight wives and was considered “a man after God’s own heart.” 1 Samuel 13:14

Fast forward to the Apostolic age and we are told church leadership should be a man with only one wife. 1 Timothy 3:12

Even in the Book of Mormon there is a verse that condemns polygamy Jacob 2:27

Then, of course, is the revelation to revive the practice (which given the number of Mormon men being killed and so many women being widowed kind of makes sense).

This is later followed up by a revelation to end the practice.

So my guess, depending upon times and circumstances, polygamy is allowed for certain generations, but not others. 

I most certainly wouldn’t want a second wife and I know Hyrum Smith recoiled at the thought (although he later took a second wife). 

Maybe this is so, I don’t know for sure, but again I think it is a matter of present circumstances. 

Thank you for such a good thread!

Edited February 8, 2018 by warnerfranklin
Spelling errors

[bytebear]

I like the discussion. It's worth having.  I don't like the idea that God's church would never do X because I am particularly offended by X.   God doesn't run his Kingdom on the opinions of the day. 

[bytebear]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

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

It might be inconsistent but history often is.  It doesn't mean the church is false, or wrong.   The church is led by men, inspired by God.  And sometimes God does things that people don't like, including being inconsistent in who is told what.

As an example, when polygamy ended, there were actually two declarations, because the first one didn't actually stop the practice completely, even though it said it would, and that the church had actually stopped it.  It didn't.  Inconsistent?  You bet!  What the Lord wanted?  I think so, but that's for you to decide.

Quote

First Manifesto
(Canonized as Official Declaration 1)

To Whom It May Concern:

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I heareby declare my intention to submit to those laws, to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey such teaching, he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.

Wilford Woodruff [signed]

President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.^[17]

 

 

Quote

Second Manifesto

Inasmuch as there are numerous reports in circulation that plural marriages have been entered into, contrary to the official declaration of President Woodruff of September 24, 1890, commonly called the manifesto, which was issued by President Woodruff, and adopted by the Church at its general conference, October 6, 1890, which forbade any marriages violative of the law of the land, I, Joseph F. Smith, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, hereby affirm and declare that no such marriages have been solemnized with the sanction, consent, or knowledge of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And I hereby announce that all such marriages are prohibited, and if any officer or member of the Church shall assume to solemnize or enter into any such marriage, he will be deemed in transgression against the Church, and will be liable to be dealt with according to the rules and regulations thereof and excommunicated therefrom.

Joseph F. Smith,
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And with that, the church ended the practice of performing plural weddings, but people already married, continued to live as polygamous families until they eventually died off. 

You are going to hit these kinds of contradictions and variations all throughout church history.  And you find the same thing all over the Bible, by the way, and you find it in other churches history, including the Catholic church, but for some reason it's easier to dismiss them when you are already rooted in a belief system.   And Christ is the savior whether the gospels agree or not on historical events, or whether Old Testament prophets went on killing sprees, or whether or not various Popes excommunicated other various Popes.   History is messy.   Mormon history is just more recent and framed within a culture we are familiar with. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by bytebear

[Suzie]

12 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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?

Hi Blossom76, nice to meet you.

I looked at this before and I would like to bring some historical facts to the discussion in order to understand this apparent discrepancy.

The answer is: John C. Bennett. When he reached Nauvoo in 1840 he became Mayor and also Assistant to the Prophet in a very short period of time. He stayed in Nauvoo for a period of approximately two years. However, after just five months of being there Smith started having suspicions with regards to his personal life, his truthfulness about being a bachelor and overall his moral conduct. There were rumors circulating about Bennett and it reached a point where Smith decided to investigate. He chose not to expose him several times, and even though some might criticize Smith's decision, I believe he acted in good faith hoping that Bennett would change his ways (which he never did) despite the fact that he was given multiple chances by the Prophet.  It was later discovered that Bennett was married and was unfaithful to his wife with many women. She ended up leaving him.

When Bennett started seducing LDS sisters, things started to go downhill from there for Bennett, Smith and the practice of Plural Marriage. He explicitly tried to seduced LDS sisters to have sexual intercourse with him and told them that no sin would fall upon them ("spiritual wifery"). Upon discovering this practice, Smith could no longer keep this hidden.  He was disfellowshipped.  It should be noted that Smith knew about these many encounters and tried very hard to give Bennett as many chances as possibly. Later on though, after observing the true natural of this individual, Smith regretted that decision and asked for forgiveness.

When Bannett left Nauvoo, he left bitter. He wrote many letters and even published a book. In all these publications, he attacked the very same, sacred doctrine of Plural Marriage that Smith has been trying to prepare the Saints for and has attempted to introduce to a very small group of Latter-Day Saints. Bennett was indeed putting the whole Church at risk and people were wiling to listen to him (and believe him too) because he was close to the Prophet. Even created a lot of confusion among the Saints who did not know what to believe.

In Times and Seasons, the piece you quoted about denying Plural Marriage continues:

We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and shew [show] that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend Origen Bachelor, are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despise. In support of this position, we present the following certificates:-

We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system"

Is it really surprising why such statement would be published in order to counterattack the impact Bennett's words had on non-LDS and LDS members? Is it really surprising why Smith would send missionaries to refute Bennett's claims? And lastly: Is it really surprising why he would deny polygamy after Bennett's attempt to destroy the Church?

Absolutely not.

 

 

[Suzie]

2 hours 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.

And I am trying to get the full picture.  That's why I'm posting my questions!

I will make a search on your posts (or if you can please send me a PM with links to some of your threads with the questions, I would appreciate it) . I will attempt to answer some of them from a historical point of view (if they are Church-history related).  I cannot promise to have all the answers but I will try my best to assist.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Suzie

[Jane_Doe]

11 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Hi Blossom76, nice to meet you.

I looked at this before and I would like to bring some historical facts to the discussion in order to understand this apparent discrepancy.

The answer is: John C. Bennett. When he reached Nauvoo in 1840 he became Mayor and also Assistant to the Prophet in a very short period of time. He stayed in Nauvoo for a period of approximately two years. However, after just five months of being there Smith started having suspicions with regards to his personal life, his truthfulness about being a bachelor and overall his moral conduct. There were rumors circulating about Bennett and it reached a point where Smith decided to investigate. He chose not to expose him several times, and even though some might criticize Smith's decision, I believe he acted in good faith hoping that Bennett would change his ways (which he never did) despite the fact that he was given multiple chances by the Prophet.  It was later discovered that Bennett was married and was unfaithful to his wife with many women. She ended up leaving him.

When Bennett started seducing LDS sisters, things started to go downhill from there for Bennett, Smith and the practice of Plural Marriage. He explicitly tried to seduced LDS sisters to have sexual intercourse with him and told them that no sin would fall upon them ("spiritual wifery"). Upon discovering this practice, Smith could no longer keep this hidden.  He was disfellowshipped.  It should be noted that Smith knew about these many encounters and tried very hard to give Bennett as many chances as possibly. Later on though, after observing the true natural of this individual, Smith regretted that decision and asked for forgiveness.

When Bannett left Nauvoo, he left bitter. He wrote many letters and even published a book. In all these publications, he attacked the very same, sacred doctrine of Plural Marriage that Smith has been trying to prepare the Saints for and has attempted to introduce to a very small group of Latter-Day Saints. Bennett was indeed putting the whole Church at risk and people were wiling to listen to him (and believe him too) because he was close to the Prophet. Even created a lot of confusion among the Saints who did not know what to believe.

In Times and Seasons, the piece you quoted about denying Plural Marriage continues:

 

 

Note: if (hypothetically) Joseph was a con man just interested in having sex with lots of women, going this "spiritual wifery" concept would have gone perfectly.  The fact that he fought so hard against  "spiritual wifery" and there are no children from Joseph sealings clearly indicate that these sealings weren't about sex.  

PS- Hi @Suzie, good to see you again!

[Suzie]

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

he fact that he fought so hard against  "spiritual wifery" and there are no children from Joseph sealings clearly indicate that these sealings weren't about sex.  

 

Hi Jane_Doe, so nice to see you.

I wish it was that simple. I am not sure to be honest. Even though I believe that a lot of these sealings didn't involve sexual intercourse, I cannot ignore the fact that quite a few of these women (good standing, Latter-Day Saints) have expressed that they were wives of Smith in "very deed". And even though I agree these sealings weren't about sex, I don't think we could state categorically that sex wasn't part of them at all.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Suzie

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Hi Jane_Doe, so nice to see you.

I wish it was that simple. I am not sure to be honest. Even though I believe that a lot of these sealings didn't involve sexual intercourse, I cannot ignore the fact that quite a few of these women (good standing, Latter-Day Saints) have expressed that they were wives of Smith in "very deed". And even though I agree these sealings weren't about sex, I don't think we could state that sex wasn't part of it at all.

I 100% agree with the bolded part (and the rest of it too).  It's pretty obvious that sex wasn't the goal (which was what I was trying to state).  There is much we don't specifically know.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

You are going to hit these kinds of contradictions and variations all throughout church history.  And you find the same thing all over the Bible, by the way, and you find it in other churches history, including the Catholic church, but for some reason it's easier to dismiss them when you are already rooted in a belief system.   And Christ is the savior whether the gospels agree or not on historical events, or whether Old Testament prophets went on killing sprees, or whether or not various Popes excommunicated other various Popes.   History is messy.   Mormon history is just more recent and framed within a culture we are familiar with. 

Just to be clear, I don't dismiss anything about catholic history, it (along with doctrine I don't agree with) is the reason I'm looking into the LDS faith in the first place.  /but I'm certainly not going to 'jump ship' to another church with the same unethical problems.  I'm going to look at it properly 

[Blossom76]

1 hour ago, bytebear said:

It might be inconsistent but history often is.  It doesn't mean the church is false, or wrong.  

This is perhaps the biggest problem I am facing on this website.  People assume I am saying the church is wrong because of blah blah, that is absolutely 100% not true.  If something is inconsistent and I want further information on it, that shouldn't be a problem.  I am tired of the defensive attacks from (probably well meaning) LDS members saying things like 'oh so the whole church is false then, you got your answer' its a very petty and childish attitude.

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

This is perhaps the biggest problem I am facing on this website.  People assume I am saying the church is wrong because of blah blah, that is absolutely 100% not true.  If something is inconsistent and I want further information on it, that shouldn't be a problem.  I am tired of the defensive attacks from (probably well meaning) LDS members saying things like 'oh so the whole church is false then, you got your answer' its a very petty and childish attitude.

How about we (everyone) just wipe the slate and move forward talking about things?

Edited February 9, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Blossom76]

2 hours ago, zil said:

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

My guess is its a thread why so many people attacked me it, it gets to the point where you can't respond to everyone and the one person who may have said something that actually helps without being a jerk about it - well its very easy for those comments to get lost in a sea of others who are being nasty.

[Just_A_Guy]

22 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

How about we (everyone) just wipe the slate and move forward talking about things?

Phooey.  What’s the fun in that?

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, Maureen said:

No it doesn't.

M.

YES IT DOES!!!!

[Maureen]

20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

YES IT DOES!!!!

All CAPS might mean you're yelling but a larger font might mean it's easier to read. ?

M.

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, Suzie said:

The answer is: John C. Bennett.

Did anyone else groan out loud after reading this name?

(I have the same reaction when I hear the name Mark Hoffman)

[Blossom76]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

How about we (everyone) just wipe the slate and move forward talking about things?

 

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Phooey.  What’s the fun in that?

In all seriousness, I am just trying to find the right church to belong to so I can worship God in a way that is acceptable to him, in the best way I possibly can.  In order to do that I need to do research.  The LDS church claims to be the only true and living church on the face of the earth, it also claims to be the only church with the authority to perform valid baptism.  Now, while I would love to just believe that on face value, its just not going to happen, I need to convince myself that these claims are true.  And if they are true, then there should be no need for all this hostility.  I am not attacking the church at all, if my honest questions offend someone to the point where they get defensive because they find the issue uncomfortable, then that is a reflection on their personal faith, not mine.

For such big claims there ought to be some sort of solid evidence for it, for example the lines of authority and what is and is not scripture and what the early church did or did not do or did do and said they didn't - that stuff matters to me, because it establishes character.   Claims like the LDS church make are going to attract attention, they are going to cause people to go 'that's excellent news, I'd like to learn more', is everyone going to read the history of the church in that quest for knowledge? Probably not, but that does not mean that those who do should be treated as insincere.  This is not fun for me, this is a very very serious issue, my eternal soul is at the centre of all this, I won't just take big claims on face value, I will look into it, my soul is worth it.

PS this is by no means meant negatively on @Jane_Doe or @Just_A_Guy it was just a good example to explain to you all where I am coming from.

[Jane_Doe]

We would love to help you in that regard @Blossom76

[Blossom76]

5 hours ago, Suzie said:

Hi Blossom76, nice to meet you.

I looked at this before and I would like to bring some historical facts to the discussion in order to understand this apparent discrepancy.

The answer is: John C. Bennett. When he reached Nauvoo in 1840 he became Mayor and also Assistant to the Prophet in a very short period of time. He stayed in Nauvoo for a period of approximately two years. However, after just five months of being there Smith started having suspicions with regards to his personal life, his truthfulness about being a bachelor and overall his moral conduct. There were rumors circulating about Bennett and it reached a point where Smith decided to investigate. He chose not to expose him several times, and even though some might criticize Smith's decision, I believe he acted in good faith hoping that Bennett would change his ways (which he never did) despite the fact that he was given multiple chances by the Prophet.  It was later discovered that Bennett was married and was unfaithful to his wife with many women. She ended up leaving him.

When Bennett started seducing LDS sisters, things started to go downhill from there for Bennett, Smith and the practice of Plural Marriage. He explicitly tried to seduced LDS sisters to have sexual intercourse with him and told them that no sin would fall upon them ("spiritual wifery"). Upon discovering this practice, Smith could no longer keep this hidden.  He was disfellowshipped.  It should be noted that Smith knew about these many encounters and tried very hard to give Bennett as many chances as possibly. Later on though, after observing the true natural of this individual, Smith regretted that decision and asked for forgiveness.

When Bannett left Nauvoo, he left bitter. He wrote many letters and even published a book. In all these publications, he attacked the very same, sacred doctrine of Plural Marriage that Smith has been trying to prepare the Saints for and has attempted to introduce to a very small group of Latter-Day Saints. Bennett was indeed putting the whole Church at risk and people were wiling to listen to him (and believe him too) because he was close to the Prophet. Even created a lot of confusion among the Saints who did not know what to believe.

In Times and Seasons, the piece you quoted about denying Plural Marriage continues:

 

 

This is awesome, thank you so much

[Blossom76]

5 hours ago, Suzie said:

I will make a search on your posts (or if you can please send me a PM with links to some of your threads with the questions, I would appreciate it) . I will attempt to answer some of them from a historical point of view (if they are Church-history related).  I cannot promise to have all the answers but I will try my best to assist.

I'd really like that, thank you ? 

[warnerfranklin]

Hey Blossom76,

If you are looking for more info on the “contradiction” you found with when and why plural marriage was being practiced in the LDS Church May I recommend the “Legacy Series” found on the Mormon Channel App under the Audio programs. Check out Episode 5 - Nauvoo Relief Society.  There is a lengthy session in there that discusses just what you mentioned. 

From what I understand this was during a time when persecution against LDS members was ramping up again and in response to a pamphlet that was released by enemies of the church who were questioning the virtue of Mormon women the church released their own pamphlet saying that we are against sexual immorality in various forms to include polygamy.

This caused a number of problems. Enemies of the church pointed that this was a contradiction because members were practicing plural marriage. Those inside the church made the fine distinction that they are against it unless it’s church ordained. 

This was also a contributing factor to a schism that developed after Joseph’s murder. Emma Smith was very against polygamy and said women should be obedient to priesthood insofar as much as what they preach from the pulpit (and plural marriage wasn’t taught from the pulpit). Of course, in the end we know Emma and a good sized minority chose to stay in Illinois when Brigham Young and most others departed for Utah. 

But to the other point when “looking for a true church” I would hope you remember that no denomination is perfect. That no leadership hasn’t had its share of individuals who didn’t live up to their calling. But similarly, I’m not going to castigate the Catholic Church for something that happened two hundred years ago nor am I going to leave the LDS Church because of failings in its own history. 

I became a Mormon after 40 years as an evangelical because I saw things in the LDS Church that I knew would help me with my walk with Christ, that would help me and my family draw closer to God.

That is why we always point to Christ. Not to the prophet, not the 12 or 70 (all of whom I know about I respect), but to Christ the savior of our souls. 

I hope you find the answers you are looking for. May God bless and keep you!

[anatess2]

21 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.

 

16 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

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, I didn't address the the reason for the inconsistency because when I read both of those statements it is not inconsistent to me.  So I explained to you why I think they're not inconsistent.  As JAG explained above Joseph Smith did not correct the statement.  This is because it is not inconsistent to God's commandment.  The commandment to take on another wife was not given to the entire Church.  Rather, it was only given to specific men in the Church.  Everybody was commanded to have only one wife unless you are specifically called to take on another.

Now, this is just me opining, but I would think it would look really bad for Joseph Smith if he would have corrected the statement - yeah, you should only have one wife except for me.  I can have more than one wife because God commanded me.  I would think this would cause the Church to fall apart.  The restoration of Eternal Marriage was a long and arduous process that required the Saints - especially Joseph Smith - to have to be spiritually strong and well-prepared.    @Suzie's historical account shows that even with the preparation, the Church experienced great travails because of it.

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

The dup machine is BAAAACCCKKK!

Edited February 9, 2018 by anatess2