I have always been Mormon. I started with the primary basics and grew in faith and testimony. I was raised at the height of correlation – where only faith promoting stories were given to me as part of my heritage. There was once a moment in my life where I claimed that I KNEW every part and story of the Church was true, and I could not deny it. I saw everything in black and white; those who weren’t for us were against us. I’d been taught that no leader could ever lead us astray and that when a leader has spoken, the thinking had been done. I was raised to not trust any source of information not published directly by the church. I passionately defended all of my beliefs from those out to destroy them with lies and misinformation.
In the fall of 2011 I received an answer to prayer that shook the foundation of my faith because my personal revelation conflicted with what the prophets had always said: womanhood = motherhood; and that God wanted me to not have more children. I looked at the Teachings of the Living Prophets manual and wondered how the answer to my prayer had been so clear – and in opposition to what I thought I knew to be true: that prophets could not be wrong. I decided to embark on more study, and I ran into some dirty details that had been scrubbed from the Church History I’d been taught. I felt betrayed, like I’d been lied to. For heaven’s sake, even our artwork was a lie! Joseph translated the Book of Mormon with his head in a hat! I discovered more and more, including that Joseph married teenage girls, sealed himself to married women, lied about his polygamy, and kept most of it secret from Emma. I was angry. They didn’t tell me about that! As I prayed and pondered over the matter I realized that possible errors and sins, even grievous ones, did not negate the fact that Joseph was the prophet of the restoration or that he restored the priesthood to the earth.
This perspective required me to develop a complex faith and understanding of human prophets, a complex understanding of how revelation may or may not work, a deeper commitment of love and forgiveness to others’ weaknesses and sins, and most importantly a stronger testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I recentered the foundation of my faith on the Gospel, not the church or any human who has come before, but the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ. We may have had prophets that were deceived or even made mistakes in the implementation of God’s will (Joseph’s polygamy or Brigham’s racist priesthood ban) and not even that can stop the work from progressing. God can overcome the greatest human frailties and weaknesses and bring about His will, despite our broken feeble attempts. If there is anything the Old Testament teaches us, truly it is that God uses imperfect, broken, fallible men to lead his people.
Learning, understanding, and embracing the hard truths of our history does not invalidate the fact that God uses men as instruments in His hands to bring about his will. Men. They were and are imperfect men, doing their best and sometimes making a hot mess of it. I finally understood what it meant to be led by fallible men. Maybe if we are required to forgive all men, I could forgive my past leaders whatever wrongs they committed. Could I also forgive church historians through the ages who hid or decided to teach only a faith building narrative form of our history? Yes, I could forgive those fallible leaders as well. Can I continue to sustain, support, love, pray for the success of, and forgive my leaders of today? Yes.
Do I believe that Joseph had a vision? Even though now I know that Joseph recorded several different accounts of the first vision – and the original saints would not have even recognized the one we consider official today? Yes, I believe Joseph had a vision. Do I believe that every word and act and deed he did was from God? Of course not, he would have been translated if that were so.
I thought back to ten years ago when I lived in the Nauvoo temple district, over several years I spent days and days walking where Joseph and Emma and Brigham walked.
I now unequivocally believe it’s vital for us to know our history, and not just the things that make it easy for us to believe, but things that challenge us as well. Do I now look back on my trip to Nauvoo differently? Yes. I walked where Joseph walked and I saw the statues and I stood at the window where he fell to his death – and now I know that a great part of his martyrdom was due to his polygamy and his ordering the Nauvoo Expositor to be destroyed because it published truths about his secret polygamy.
I know Joseph wasn’t perfect. But looking back on Nauvoo – there is a cost to only accepting the easy, heroic story. To understand the facts of polygamy (that many girls and women only entered into polygamy under promises of glorious exaltation for them and their families or under threat of Joseph’s life; that women who rejected offers of Joseph’s polygamy were gossiped about and called liars and adulterers) and then to see my fellow saints reject these facts brings me great sorrow. To reject they are worth knowing is to say to those women, “Your stories, your lives, your voices do not matter.”
To ignore the unpretty parts of our story we must silence and ignore the lives and voices of countless women, women whose backs have been broken against our easy stories. You must choose your comfort and ease of belief over the buried voices of the past. You choose the rose-colored glasses given to you in primary school over a mature kaleidoscope of faith. No one is asking you to lessen your faith, but they may be hoping for you to deepen it.
My testimony is built upon the foundation of knowing God lives and loves me, that He sent His Son to die for me, and that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved. I believe God used men to restore His church on the earth again. I believe that I can love, honor, sustain, and forgive our leaders past and present for their ever imperfect offerings of their best before God (just as I hope my imperfect offerings will be accepted before the Lord). I have decided to personally refrain from singing the hymn “Praise to the Man” at church from here on out, because there is only one man I will ever sing praises to from now on, and that is my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Thank you for sharing your testimony of the Gospel! Especially as a happily employed lawyer mom, I know (and our leaders acknowledge) that our church leaders are not infallible and have made sexist and seemingly sexist comments both in the distant and not so distant past. However, I strongly believe your faithful process of praying and your communication with God in no way conflicts with their current teachings regarding prayer, personal revelation, the value of women, the importance of “mothering” and “nurturing” others whether or not you have children, and family planning.
Sure, you can throw out colorful quotes to distance the church and their leaders from their beautiful teachings, but I found comfort in hearing this from Niel L. Andersen during the 2011 General Conference:
When to have a child and how many children to have are private decisions to be made between a husband and wife and the Lord. These are sacred decisions—decisions that should be made with sincere prayer and acted on with great faith.
Your testimony and experience are inspiring! As the father of many daughters I wish their faith and testimonies were like yours. Like you, I feel knowing the real history of the church’s early leaders and beginnings only amplifies the pivotal importance of the Savior’s role in the church. If He can use imperfect men to bring about such a wonderful work, then I have a chance too, to be used by Him in a meaningful way… despite my many weaknesses.
Beautiful conversion story Kristine A: I recentered the foundation of my faith on the Gospel, not the church or any human who has come before, but the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So now that you realize how fallible they can be (are) what do you make of their demand for literalness and rote obedience to them and to things that have nothing at all to do the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Not Being willing to sing praises of joseph smith says more about you then it does him. All of us will get thru this life with some tarnish of our celestial beings. I think once we get thru mortality I think we will sing praises to all of us. If the atonement is infinite then our faith in the savior overcomes all. Even the things we disagree with.
Kudos to you for writing this blog. I felt as if it was exactly the thoughts and feelings I myself have been experiencing and I have come to the same conclusions you have. Thank you for putting it into words. Admittedly the initial shock of discovering the truth about Joseph Smith made me reel with denial, doubt and betrayal. I questioned whether I would have actually joined the church had I lived back then. Through much prayer and soul searching I came to a new vision of what the church is and what it means to me. I no longer accept everything at face value. Like you, I have gained a deeper understanding and a closer relationship to the Savior.
JDT: I thought getting into the details of my answer to prayer re: motherhood that started my faith transition would distract from the piece. I assure you as the mother of an IVF child I cherish motherhood, but that’s another post for another day.
Ron: I really think my not singing praises and worship to Joseph Smith will not count against me. I think my Savior and HF know my heart. At this point I’m comfortable with that.
I enjoyed reading this post. Why? Because Kristine is able to move from the rose colored glass prospective she was raised with, to an educated prospective that allows for prophets and apostles to be fallible and yet still be prophets.
A few of the facts of life are:
1. When principles come into conflict, for example, thou shalt not kill vs. protect your family–the higher principle prevails.
2. Prophets are more fallible than we have hither to supposed.
3. Prophets, and therefore the church they head, matures as an organization in some of the same way a child matures.
4. The Lord seeth fit to chasten his people (and the church), he trieth their patience and their faith.
When to comes to polygamy/polyandry, I have been doing a little research. I’m surprised at the results so far. I am having trouble finding the women who entered into polygamy accusing Joseph of being a philander or men whose wives married Joseph fighting against the practice. Has anyone found out differently? I’d like to know.
I am pleasantly surprised to find out many of the women Joseph invited into polygamy had powerful Spiritual manifestations, including angelic visitations, in answer to prayer.
Jared, there are plenty of women who didn’t like polygamy. See Nancy Rigdon’s rejection of Joseph’s polygamy, and Eliza Ann Young, the woman who divorced Brigham and then went on a tour against polygamy (known as “wife #19”). It appears you didn’t look very hard. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Eliza_Young
MH-I appreciate the additional information. Still looking.
I’ve been focusing on those who married Joseph Smith. Beside Nancy Rigdon, were their others who rejected the principle. What did the majority of Joseph Smith’s plural wives do after his death? Did they remain faithful?
From where I’m at now, it appears the vast majority of those who Joseph proposed too, were either quiet about their feelings or supported the principle openly, few utterly rejected Joseph.
I’m trying to find how many of those who married Joseph did so because of answer to prayer.
Kristine – Thanks for sharing your personal journey through church history and its affect on your testimony. My journey has been similar, but different. I have found that people end up in one of three stages with regard to church history:
1. Hagiographic stage. This is where everything is viewed through rose-colored glasses, focusing only on stories that promote faith and only focuses on the heroic qualities of leaders and early church members. The conclusions made about church history in this stage are largely borrowed from others.
2. Tarnished stage. This is where unsavory aspects of church history come to light. The reader may feel betrayed and led to change not just their assumptions, but their conclusions regarding the church and its history. However, again, the conclusions made about church history in this stage are largely borrowed from others. Many who hit this stage end up staying in it. The focus of their study is primarily on the unsavory and defines how they view the church and its history.
3. Mature stage. The name of this stage is not meant to be qualitative, but simply to reflect that it requires much deeper study than the previous two stages. It comes only after deep study of various aspects of church history – not solely the hagiographic, not solely the unsavory. Conclusions made about church history at this point become largely the student’s own, but are made much more carefully. As with most subjects, the more one learns about church history, the more one realizes they don’t know, and they begin to approach the subject with much deeper humility. In this stage, church history begins to be less defined by the titillating headline-grabbers and more by the daily lived experience of its participants. The painting becomes defined by a much richer whole rather than by a few strokes, even if interpretations differ. For those approaching their study with an eye of faith, often a much deeper testimony is developed in this stage. For those approaching this from an academic perspective, often a greater respect develops for the actors in the narrative.
As a lifelong student of church history, I am sympathetic to your journey (even if I am not as confident in some of your conclusions). Nevertheless, I appreciate your personal narrative and hope that your study of church history remains a lifelong pursuit.
Kristine,
Thank you for this post. I agree with most of everything except one concept.
How do you call this “his church” or God’s church knowing what you know? I love the church, I believe it is special and it’s the church for me. I believe there is power in this church, but I have a hard time calling it exclusive power, and phrases like “his church” are difficult for me to understand in light of my knowledge about the messiness of our history. Can’t this just be another good church? Why do we have to claim exclusivity? I can even accept priesthood authority and that there is something special about the priesthood, but I don’t believe it’s the only authority God has granted to humans, and I don’t believe that it’s exclusive.
Jared, Fanny Alger, the first plural wife, was shooed out of town in the heat of the night. While her thoughts are not known to us, she married a non-Mormon after Joseph. This isn’t a ringing endorsement of her having faith in the principle.
FAIR has a pretty good list of women who rejected polygamy when asked by Joseph: http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Did_women_turn_Joseph_down
“What did the majority of Joseph Smith’s plural wives do after his death?” A lot married other mormon men. Eliza R. Snow was married to both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
“Did they remain faithful?” Fanny no. For biographies of the rest, see Brian Hales website: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/history-2/plural-wives-overview/
#11 hope_for_things:
Is it possible God never said it was exclusively His church? We have different accounts of the First Vision, and D&C 1:30 which was interpreted by a prophet to scribes.
Is it possible fallible prophets misunderstood God’s meaning of “true and living”? Is it possible they slipped in “only” where it wasn’t meant to be?
I think it is possible. It wouldn’t be the first time that something slightly misunderstood became a teaching handed down for generations.
Some people are very very protective of truth exclusivity for their religion to be meaningful to them. But temple work and other things really open the door for us to ask if it really must be exclusive.
The story of the good Samaritan was all about those who had authority but passed by, and one that had no authority that did what mattered.
It is possible God had an important work for Joseph to do in one corner of the vineyard, while others were working for Him in other parts?
It does not go against our teachings that salvation is for all God’s children. We just may have emphasized our brand too much, and God knows we’ll all figure it out someday. That could be part of our maturing in faith.
#13 When it comes to the claims of the restoration, they are either true or false. Finding a nuanced ground in between is not reasonable in my opinion.
The doctrine of the restoration fits well into what we see today: a church with a scrubbed history that is now becoming a hindrance to many church members, a test and a trail of their faith–even a purging (D&C 101:1-9).
If I were to submit that church members who follow Christ faithfully will be spared from trouble and difficulty, I would be teaching something that isn’t doctrinal.
We have the promise that we will be supported in our trials, troubles, and afflictions (Alma 36:3), but not protected entirely from them. As it is with individuals, so it is with the church. Prophets are fallible according to doctrine. After nearly 200 years, the fallibility of prophets is evident. Not at all surprising.
The doctrine of the church has and will always be that church members need to have a witnesses from the Holy Ghost regarding the Book of Mormon and then live such that they can have the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
It is not an easy path, and like any other endeavor undertaken by God’s children there will be a variety of results. This is so because the degree of “faith” acquired since our birth in the world of spirits differs for each individual.
MH-thanks again for the tutoring and links.:->
Jared: “When it comes to the claims of the restoration, they are either true or false.”
Are you as sure about that as you are about how Joseph’s wives felt and how they stayed faithful?
Keep digging.
#13Heber13,
Thanks for your comments, I agree with you that perhaps it’s our interpretation of prior statements that have led us to our current position with exclusivity claims.
However, these claims are pervasive and permeate our weekly church discourse. We don’t talk as much about following God and having faith in Jesus, as we do about following the prophet and having faith that Joseph Smith and the restored gospel are exclusively true.
Perfect example is with #14 Jared and his comment. He seems to prioritize having a witness of the BoM and loyalty to that witness as high priority, perhaps even higher priority than living a Christ like life. Am I understanding your comment correctly Jared?
#17 I’ve been digging since I returned from by mission in 1971 after being in the Army. It’s been a long time since I revisited the subject of polygamy. It’s not a new subject to me. There is more information nowadays and that makes it all the more interesting.
After studying church doctrine and history all these years I’m not finding anything new, just a little more detail.
hope, I think you are right about the church meetings we experience. And I think that is what causes us dissonance and suffering. Because it doesn’t quite feel right, but as we see through the glass darkly, we try to do the best with what light we have.
But just because it is pervasive on Sunday, doesn’t make it right. We can choose to see it differently, according to the spirit.
The church can be true AND others may not need it. But I need it. It’s where I’m planted. And I find no need to make exclusive claims about it. It serves no purpose. Rather…I live it and it makes me happy and I can share that with others who want that happiness. It becomes an invitation to goodness, not a statement of exclusive possession of it.
JT: (and others) I have done some further study into church history. I think we need to know the stories of women, especially. I think that no one can know for sure how these practices originated, if they are from God, and if they are if the were just implemented imperfectly. I don’t know. I truly don’t think we can know with our human understanding and we’ll find out in the next life.
I think my refusal to sing “praises” to a man lies less in my judgment of Joseph’s character; and more in the fact that I’m rejecting hero worship of prophets, leaders, and any man. It’s not just Joseph I decline to sing praises to. That song is just over hero worshippy for me.
11 (hope): I’m working through my own issues on mormon exceptionalism and exclusivity of truth. My relationship with the church is complicated, esp as a mormon feminist. I’m much more of a universalist, I like how the givens describe eternal progression of moving up through the kingdoms.
“I decided to embark on more study, and I ran into some dirty details that had been scrubbed from the Church History I’d been taught.”
I guess I was fortunate in that I had classes at my state university LDS institute where some of these were discussed and that provided the ability to analyze them with the question of whether or not that bars testimony. I remember learning that the bald humanoid head on the Priest of Elkenah was ‘drawn-in’ where a fragment was missing and the actual figure likely had an animal head.
Though I certainly learned more as time progressed, the foundation of evaluating some less than flattering details without feeling of betrayal and in a context of imperfect humanity had been set. When I read Mormon Enigma and other works by Newell and Tippetts Avery, I could see their efforts to present biographical information as a positive, and the history was fascinating.
The mystery of Joseph’s multiple wives is, likewise, fascinating. I firmly believe that some revelatory principle was behind what Joseph believed he had to do, though his interpretation and enactment of that principle was errant and caused harm. The Kirtland Bank and Safety Society also caused harm to followers. If Joseph had strictly wanted extra intimate partners, there would have been much simpler ways to have them without marrying them all.
The reason why he wasn’t given the clear and precise missive on how he was supposed to enact the revelatory principle is confusing. So was the perceived need to study reformed Egyptian and get a certificate of correct translation of characters, when the translation process didn’t need that at all. It could occur simply by looking at something that had a screen of a word and pronouncing the word before it disappeared and a new word appeared. Nevertheless, Joseph believed he was translating what was inscribed on plates directly from one language to another. His belief may have been in error, just as his belief on how to enact the revelatory principles that led to plural marriage may have been in error. Nevertheless, Joseph had a gift–a greater accessibility to things beyond the veil, and those around him–even Emma, felt that.
Thanks for sharing this Kristine. I’ve gone through a similar journey. My second book about the Book of Mormon tries to gain this mature understanding of the text. History is complicated, and as you have described very well, the simplistic narrative we hear in church, doesn’t always (or even usually) help us understand and appreciate it. My book is an attempt to show for example, how Moroni’s innovative and war winning tactics actually caused a great deal of harm seen throughout the book of Helaman. I describe how many of the complaints of what the text called apostates actually had some merit. (Just like Thomas Marsh had some legitimate complaints beyond milk stripping.) If the BoM occurred in a real time and place, then their history should have all of the complexity and messiness that you described above; and most importantly, we can have a deeper and far richer faith as we come to understand that complexity. So thats my wordy way of saying good post haha.
Kristine A #21: “I’m much more of a universalist, I like how the givens describe eternal progression of moving up through the kingdoms.” I think being a universalist is the most Mormon thing of all. Joseph Smith claimed to be a universalist, and his father also was. Personally, I think it pervades our doctrine, or it did until we started to align with the religious right which has a more exclusionary saved or damned bent to it.
Kristine A – I really enjoyed reading your post, and like many above saw myself reflected in your words. I’m not quite sure why the church has chosen actively to either hide or sanitise aspects of its history. A marriage relationship is a good example…it’s the mixture of ALL the aspects of that relationship that make it what it is. The unsavoury, the lies, the hard times, the unforgiving…..but also the love, the connection, the fun and the laughter. It’s not just the good stuff that makes it what it is. The church has unfortunately chosen to actively withhold information. Imagine what that does in a relationship. That’s why many of us feel the way we do.. For a church to preach truth, disclosure and honesty on one hand and to do what it has done on the other has placed so many of its members in a difficult position. It’s as if we have to reassess the relationship all over again. Would of been nice to have not had to do that…
#7 – Jared, “I am pleasantly surprised to find out many of the women Joseph invited into polygamy had powerful Spiritual manifestations, including angelic visitations, in answer to prayer.”
I am not surprised in the least that women whose powerful leaders had instructions from God to marry them reached the same conclusion. I’m not surprised in the least at women and girls who were frantic to ensure their family’s eternal standing, which the leaders said was hanging precariously on this one transaction. The surprise comes from the ones who resisted.
And it was only an “invitation” in the very technical sense of the word. With invitations like that, who needs commands?
But the fascinating one is Vilate Kimball who knew only that something was troubling her husband, but he refused to tell her what it was. After prayer, she was given a vision of what the command was and even the woman Joseph Smith had commanded her husband to take to wife. She informed her husband, “Heber, what you kept from me the Lord has shown me.”
Does this make me want to support polygamy? Absolutely not. Was she ‘frantic to ensure her family’s eternal standing?’ I don’t think so. Could you say she surmised what was troubling her husband because of the general whispers that surrounded her in the community? Perhaps. Could she have guessed correctly the appearance of the woman that Heber had commanded to marry? That is more doubtful–but then again, it was a small community. Can you disparage her commitment by saying she reached the decision out of patriarchal pressure? Yes, but then you also disparage her faith and her unique experience as a prophetess.
“it did until we started to align with the religious right ”
Hawkgrrrl,
This takes me back to an old post on Mormon Matters– The Whole Church is Under Condemnation”: The Talk that Changed the Church. Bruce Nielson posted a premise that the talk by Ezra Taft Benson resulted in the church that led to greater emphasis on the Book of Mormon’s witness to the divinity of Christ and the push to ‘fit in’ by better depicting the church as a Christian denomination. Your one comment on that thread however, seemed to suggest that your thoughts were not so much that the “Talk” was not the driving force for trying to fit in, but rather a push for us to know the Book of Mormon better. Do you have an opinion as to what that driving force to align with the religious right was?
Rigel, I’ll take a stab at that – I think it’s the end game of a long process of “de-horning” the LDS Church in the eyes of the rest of the (American) Christian world. We’ve tried to downplay the theological differences and play up the cultural similarities, and that has corresponded chronologically and politically with the rise of the religious right and their unfortunate takeover of the Republican Party. The gay marriage battle has just been the latest thing in which LDS votes have been useful.
We’re being played for fools, too; we’re just “useful idiots,” as Lenin might have said had he been Pat Robertson. They haven’t been forgetting the theological differences, and their leaders are no more willing to accommodate us in American worship space than they were in 1845. But we’re happy if we’re not getting doors slammed in the missionaries’ faces as often. They’ll send us to the guillotine along with the Scientologists, Moonies, and JWs if they get the upper hand.
Kristine,
Or there are legitimate reasons for both polygamy and withholding the priesthood (or even membership) from certain people.
The Bible is really God’s dealings with a polygamist family, or the 12 tribes of Israel. Not only did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) have multiple wives they were forbidden by Jehovah from even interacting with certain tribes let alone allowing membership or granting the priesthood. Yet, Jesus referred to Abraham as “perfect in his generation”. Israel married sisters and thier got thier SLAVES Zilpah and Bilhah as part of the package. They called them handmaidens, but they were propery of Laban and had no say in the decision.
So, why is it acceptable for these ancient (200 or 3,000 years is ancient either way) Prophets to practice polygamy, have slaves (which is worse than what Brigham said) and limit thier interaction with certain races, but not for Joesph — Spencer Kimball?
It would be difficult to be married to more than one woman. It is hard enough to be married to one. If it’s about sex, then just don’t get married. Having multiple wives is not a good pickup line. Jacob did it reluctantly and out of duty. He really did not want to be with Leah. God has his reasons, that I don’t understand (for both polygamy and administering the priesthood to certain groups). I am willing to accept he knows more than I do about the gospel.
Ken, I do not know if the phood ban and polygamy came from God; I don’t think I, or anyone else, will know for sure until the next life.
That being said I think you have a much more literal translation of the Bible than I do — that everything that happened in it was God’s will………
Hawkgrrrl,
“I think being a universalist is the most Mormon thing of all. Joseph Smith claimed to be a universalist, and his father also was.”
Deep in my heart I know my personal beliefs are also universalist. So I am comforted when Joseph Smith used language that demonstrated his universalist leanings. But I am also conflicted by a Joseph who told of an angel threatening to destroy him less he marry additional wives. Then, telling these potential wives that their salvation and that of their families would be jeopardized if they refused him. To me, that appears quite the opposite of universalism.
Which one is the real Joseph? He is such an enigma. He spoke of a merciful God that is wanting and willing to save everyone. He also spoke of a God demanding complete obedience to the one and only true path. Maybe that is part of the beauty of Mormonism. It can speak to all types of people. Whether we are universalist or more absolute minded, we can find words from the prophet that resonate with us.
So do we just selectively focus on what we understand and ignore the other stuff? (I’ll admit that is how I try to approach it)
Don’t know if polygamy came from God? Isn’t there a canonized revelation about that? There is a big difference between polygamy and the phood ban on that front. A section of the D & C is a major part of that.
That same section is also the one which describes the highest ordinance that most members participate in. This is troubling to many modern members (I think it is meant to be that way), yet the revelation on sealing families is still completely intertwined with polygamy in our scripture.
#17 hope_for_things wrote, Jared “seems to prioritize having a witness of the BoM and loyalty to that witness as high priority, perhaps even higher priority than living a Christ like life. Am I understanding your comment correctly Jared?”
No, you have it wrong. The Book of Mormon is a 2nd witness of Christ. Those who obtain a true testimony of the Book of Mormon receive it because they called up on the Father, in the name of Christ, and by the power of the Holy Ghost they are given a testimony.
Those who live a Christ like life (as revealed by prophets in scripture) know that the Lord reveals His will for mankind through prophets.
New Iconoclast
Do you think the downplaying of differences was a shift directed by one church leader or a trend by several?
The adding of “another testament of Jesus Christ” in the 80s and the redesign of the church logo to emphasis Jesus Christ in the 90s are two specific acts that refocused attention on our status as a Christian denomination. These followed the Benson talk, BUT the retitleing of the Book of Mormon came at the conclusion of the release of the LDS edition of the scriptures, efforts for which began in the early 1970s. During that era, Spencer W. Kimball was still sermonizing the topic of being gods in embryo, a topic which would be less publicly emphasized. The Mormon Matters post cited a quote by Elder Oaks recording a ‘gospel scholar’ reviewing church periodicals for 23 years and publishing a report in 1983 that the periodicals were deficient in topics covering the atonement of the Savior. Could that ‘gospel scholar’ be the impetus that launched the change?
Rigel – #28 – “Can you disparage her commitment by saying she reached the decision out of patriarchal pressure? Yes, but then you also disparage her faith and her unique experience as a prophetess.”
For starters, is it safe to say that Vilate Kimball was an outlier? I’d bet that for every story like hers, there are fifty others full of distress, heartbreak…and patriarchal pressure.
These were real people who deserve respect and a certain amount of privacy, and I think they would get more of both if the church would make a clear, unambiguous statement that we do not practice polygamy now and will not in the future. Part of the reason we muck around in this topic is that our daughters are still being taught that polygamy is on the table. We’re not living it now, but….
There are always outliers, but there is great damage done to young girls’ psyches upon learning that her leaders, her church and her scriptures allow for the real possibility of polygamy. Has the church ever made a statement that the pressuring and strong-arming were wrong? What are girls supposed to make of that? Why should they feel secure, respected and heard?
It’s not about disparaging long-dead ancestors, it’s about the next generation of LDS girls avoiding the heartache so many of us experienced as we tumbled to the implications of Section 132.
My comment at reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/2wnije/i_have_decided_to_personally_refrain_from_singing/cosh355
My “virtual tour of Nauvoo” reveals part of the “rest of the story” that won’t be told by the official tour guides. https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/2fr6o3/a_few_stops_from_a_virtual_tour_of_nauvoo/
When people say the priesthood ban was not revealed, but that polygamy was, the John Lennon / Yoko Ono song (Woman is the n of the world) immediately comes to mind. Then I remember we’ve finally had a black president, and not a woman. And I think gay men will be recognized before a woman ever is.
Ellen,
I can tell by the number of likes to your comment that I am on dangerous ground here. I would, personally, be pleased if section 132 was removed from the canon or if a more modernized revelation for our times replaced it. I support teaching our daughters that polygamy is off the table. I would not be opposed to eliminating the option for men of our day to have a second wife sealed to them after the passing of a first wife. Those things could be sorted out in the Millenium if needed when all things become clear.
I am more concerned about teaching that there was no divine direction that led to what was the ultimate form of polygamy practiced in Nauvoo. If there was no divine direction, then that would imply that Vilate–outlier or not–was deceived by Satan OR made up a story to support the patriarchal leadership that existed. That would not be fair to her. Her story is heroic. It places her in the ranks of the women of the bible that made huge sacrifices they felt were necessary for righteousness. Her experience, though not proof that Joseph was in the right path in implementing polygamy, testifies that it was at least not unacceptable to God. If it was, she would have been warned to flee OR she was altogether deceived by false revelation. There are certain test I hope I am never asked to face, but to create doctrine that I could NEVER be asked to be tested that way that others have been creates a respecter of persons scenario.
Rigel – That first “like” is from me.
Why not teach that many early saints believed there was divine direction, as indicated by X, Y and Z? And then let the record speak for itself.
Rigel, that’s the thing though, for everyVilate there’s at least one that didn’t get a confirmation. So listen to many women’s stories and honor what they went through; but I’m not using a scale to count the stories and decide if it’s from God. I can’t know, and I don’t trust people who claim to know either way.
One of my former CES teachers left the job and now does other work for the church around the world; he told my parents he will never defend polygamy or the phood ban as being from God. As he sees it they were deceptions / stumbling blocks placed there by Satan….and those two thing are really what is stopping the Gospel from spreading to all the earth.
We can all think what we want; but no one can know. I honor those who came before by learning their stories and hearing their voices….and not just the easy ones.
Kristine,
“I have a more literal interpretation of the Bible”
That could apply if we are speaking about the flood, or Daniel surviving a lions den, or Job in the belly of a big fish. In contrast, almost all of the Old Testament is devoted to the life of a polygamist family — the tribes of Israel. In addition to the Bible numerous other texts the Torah and Koran along with many others describe Abraham and his son and grandson practicing polygamy. Some of those that follow these texts still practice polygamy.
In short, it is pretty well documented these Prophets had multiple wives at the same time. It is also well documented that Jesus spoke of them numerous times in the New Testament and other scriptures. So, I don’t know how you can claim ancient polygamy could be metaphorical and not an actual practice.
Pushed send too soon.
I am always cautious when someone uses the term “a literal interpretation” I think they use it as a cop out. A way to avoid uncomfortable facts,
Quran not Koran. Sorry spelled it phonetically.
At a time when women were seen more as property than as human, am I surprised the men in charge wrote down their polygamous experiences as a gift from God? No. To me the bible is proof that all God has to work with is messed up men and their jacked families. And like them, God works in our lives to bring about His will.
I wasn’t implying the OT was metaphorical, I was implying that fallen men can interpret their actions as the will of God and record it as such. Like I said I don’t think we can “know” either way. I do study the practices and fruits of polygamy….and it leads prophets of God to say, “I take no more thought of taking another wife than buying cattle….” For every edifying experience there are handfuls of broken, abandoned, poverty stricken families (my great grandmothers). I honor all their stories….
Interesting approach here at Wheat and Tares: Anything that you disagree with is obviously not inspired.
Personally, I prefer Nephi’s approach: Use your intellect to inform you as to why you *should* believe — not why you shouldn’t.
OK, Jack. I’ll bite. Please tell me why I should believe that an angel with a flaming sword appeared to Joseph and said he should have multiple wives including 14yos who at that time weren’t even gravid.
Then perhaps you’ll explain why I should believe it’s righteous that D&C 132 is still a matter of church doctrine. Because, given the church’s new mission to protect religious freedoms from the laws of the land that otherwise apply, I’d like to be clear before a flaming sword in the hand of an angel makes a reappearance.
Oops! Misunderstood the meaning of the word “gravid”. I should have said “not yet biologically capable of becoming pregnant”.
Kristine,
So, you are saying Abraham, Issac and Jacob took on many wives of thier own will and not God’s? I can see that being said of Solomon and David. By way of reiteration, Jacob wanted to marry Rachael and only her, he was forced to take Leah as a wife. The slaves were part of the package.
Again, Jesus on several occasions refered to Abraham as perfect in his generation. He condemned David and Solomon in thier multiple wives and concubines, but followed it up with Polygamy being good if he commands it. Like you, I dont see a need in 2015 for polygamy as a righteous seed has been raised and is in full prosper mode.
Jack and Ken,
With all due respect, LDS polygamy does not follow biblical polygamy at all. (1) all wives must be LDS. (2) Not only must they be LDS, but they must be worthy to enter the temple. (3) These sealings are binding for eternity.
There was no temple for Abraham to marry Hagar. Jacob was fooled into marrying Leah–God had no business in that affair when Laban pulled the veil over Jacob’s eyes. There was no temple when David and Solomon married non-Jewish wives and 700 concubines.
Moses married an Ethiopian woman. The Ethiopian woman wasn’t Jewish (or if she was, her conversion is unrecorded.) Certainly is cannot be argued that David and Solomon’s wives were Jewish. They were political marriages or concubines. Either way, biblical polygamy is NOT the same as LDS polygamy. The bible made not restrictions about a temple, and the wife didn’t even have to be a member of the church.
And let’s not forget how dysfunctional Jacob’s family, David’s family, Solomon’s family was. Today’s soap operas could only hope for such dysfunction. Jealousies among wives. Giving mandrakes and servants as wives to have children. Children fighting their fathers for control of Israel….
Regarding D&C 132, there are other problems as well.
1. D&C 132:51-57 condemns Emma for her resistance to polygamy. I dare Jack or Ken to bear testimony of this condemnation.
2. Joseph was sealed to teens Fanny Alger and Mary Rollins Lightner. I dare Ken and Jack to bear testimony of teen brides and Joseph Smith.
3. Joseph was sealed to women already married to other men. I dare Jack and Ken to testimony of Joseph being sealed to other men’s wives.
4. David and Solomon had concubines (women sex slaves as trophies of war). D&C 132 says God ordains this. ISIS does it and justifies this as God’s will and we find this despicable. I dare Ken and Jack to bear testimony of concubines.
Ken and Jack, you absolutely ignore the unpleasant aspects of D&C 132, and ignore the details of biblical polygamy. Anything you disagree with, you ignore, even when it is in black and white in the scriptures.
I expect crickets from you two, but I dare you to surprise me.
I have a question for those who think Joseph Smith either erred in or contrived the doctrine of polygamy. What proof is there for either premise?
I think most church members would prefer that polygamy never happened, but the fact is–it did. Just because it is an issue loaded with emotion doesn’t mean polygamy needs to be a hindrance for the church or church members. After all, our culture accepted LGBT as form of “marriage”.
For those who have a testimony of the Book of Mormon by revelation from the Holy Ghost it is more reasonable to believe Joseph Smith was inspired when he initiated polygamy than not.
Heavenly Father provided the Book of Mormon as the means to acquire a testimony, not polygamy. Once a church members has a true testimony of the Book of Mormon the door is open for inspiration and guidance thereafter.
“With all due respect, LDS polygamy does not follow biblical
polygamy at all.”
Isn’t that obvious? There was no established church until the time of Christ, which was lost for a time then restored by Joseph. LDS 101.
“There was no temple for Abraham to marry Hagar”
Exactly, see my previous point. It is noted, however, an angel of the LORD commanded Hagar to return and marry Abram, who later became Abraham, whom God referred to as perfect in his generation.
To my previous points, God commanded Abraham to take multiple wives and established a righteous seed though him.
“Moses married an Ethiopian woman. The Ethiopian woman wasn’t Jewish (or if she was, her conversion is unrecorded.)”
And?
“Certainly is cannot be argued that David and Solomon’s wives were Jewish.”
Who argued that?
“They were political marriages or concubines. “
Agreed, and this is why it was condemned by God in Jacob 2.
“Either way, biblical polygamy is NOT the same as LDS polygamy.
The bible made not restrictions about a temple, and the wife didn’t even have to be a member of the church”
Again, there was no established church. Best case scenario they lived the Law of Moses.
“And let’s not forget how dysfunctional Jacob’s family, David’s family, Solomon’s family was. “
They were. Rueben having an affair with Bilhah; Simeon and Levi castrating men that violated their sister Dinah, etc..
“Today’s soap operas could only hope for such dysfunction. “
Says who? How would you know either way?
“Jealousies among wives. Giving mandrakes and servants as wives to have children. Children fighting their fathers for control of Israel”
As I said earlier, being married to one woman is hard enough. Dealing with multiple women would be a terrible fate. No sane person would want this.
D&C 132
This section hangs on the verbiage “sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise’. Also, God condemned David and Solomon’s actions in Jacob 2 and provided a more descriptive rationale for polygamy, one that I can accept.
What marriages, polygamous or not, are “sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise” is the real issue. Fortunately, neither of us can or should make that judgment. I will live what I know to be true and let Christ sort out the details. Along these lines, I offer my strong testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I suppose that means Joseph was a Prophet, in spite of his weaknesses.
Jared – #52 – “I have a question for those who think Joseph Smith either erred in or contrived the doctrine of polygamy. What proof is there for either premise?”
You might as well be asking what proof I have that anyone ever erred in buying and selling human beings as slaves. I have no proof, just my rock hard conviction that it was wrong and we should take it off the table. Whatever “problem” slavery was solving will have to be solved a different way.
I still think it’s possible it could have been commanded of God. I also see a possibility of it being a product of the culture and the times. I could see it either way. I don’t trust yall with so much certainty about the whole thing. I think both sides have something they’re trying to sell me. I think there’s enough evidence either way to negate certainty about the whole thing. Both in OT and Restoration.
Ken,
Your response is laughable. Not only did you take much of what I said out of context, but your understanding of the theology of polygamy is astonishing bad, and you ignored my dares (no surprise.) Sorry, but that’s 3 strikes and you’re out.
It is absolutely impossible for a modern LDS man to be sealed to a Buddhist, or a Catholic, or a Hindu. Yet in D&C 132:38, God endorses these non-member marriages:
Yet you don’t seem to understand that God is seemingly endorsing David and Solomon’s marriages of women who worshiped idols. Only Uriah’s death deserves condemnation. Marrying idol-worshipers is no problem according to God. So why can’t modern Mormons be sealed to Catholics, or Hindus, or Buddhists in the temple? Please explain this to me, because you seem to have completed ignored this contradiction in my previous comment while you were taking everything I said out of context.
Then you seem to make up facts regarding Hagar and the angel. She was already married to Abraham and (1) was pregnant with Ishmael when the first angel appeared, and (2) was sent to die in the desert with Ishmael when the 2nd angel appeared, so your narrative about her going back to Abraham is a bit off. Go back and get your story right. It’s also the Islamic story of the Hajj. Here’s a refresher so you can get your story right. Please focus on the section on the mistreatment of Hagar.
MH,
You are certainly arrogant and condescending in your remarks, so I’m not sure any response will be adequate for those of us that are just so inferior to your high intellect, but I’ll try.
“understanding of the theology of polygamy is astonishing bad’
It is really not that hard to understand. One man is married to multiple women. You are the one making it more complicated and I believe the only reason is to show how superior you are intellectually, at least in your mind.
“and you ignored my dares”
I did not take your Pharisee bait. I gave the proper context of the entire section. NO marriage is sanctified if it is not sealed with the holy spirit of promise.
“It is absolutely impossible for a modern LDS man to be sealed to a Buddhist, or a Catholic, or a Hindu. Yet in D&C 132:38, God endorses these non-member marriages”
They were NOT members. There was no church at that time. Christ established the Church while on earth, it fell into apostasy and was restored in 1830. If there was no church, then it would be impossible for there to be MEMBERS.
“Yet you don’t seem to understand that God is seemingly endorsing David and Solomon’s marriages of women who worshiped idols”
It appears that way, but further reading reveals the quintessential element of any marriage sanctioned by God – “it is sealed by the holy spirit of promise”. I don’t know if these marriages were sealed by the holy spirit of promise and neither do you, but God only. More importantly, God condemned these acts in Jacob 2. As Joseph translated this section PRIOR to 132, there is more to the equation than either of us understand.
“So why can’t modern Mormons be sealed to Catholics, or Hindus, or Buddhists in the temple?”
Because they are not members.
“Then you seem to make up facts regarding Hagar and the angel.”
I did get the story wrong, but not the point. It had been a while since I read it, my apologies. An angel did appear to Hagar telling her to go back to her polygamist relationship. Is this not the same thing?
Ken, You keep quoting Jacob 2. I think this is actually a good point.
Jacob 2:24 “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.”
But D&C 132:38, “David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife;”
Why does D&C 132 conflict with Jacob 2? One of them must be wrong or uninspired, or God is the author of confusion. Maybe this conflict is grounds for decanonizing 132 since it conflicts with several previously revealed scriptures?
“I don’t know if these marriages were sealed by the holy spirit of promise and neither do you, but God only.” If you believe D&C 132:38-39, then God has spoken on this issue, so we do know God’s opinion. Why won’t you actually engage what 132 says? Is it because it is a false revelation that conflicts with Jacob 2?
Calling this a Pharisee trap is just plain goofy. You won’t engage because you know there is no good answer, and will get buried. So instead you start circular arguments, quoting things out of context, making up scripture, etc.
Your point about Abraham not being a member of the LDS church is quite silly. If Joseph is restoring the ancient practice of polygamy as practiced by Abraham, David, and Solomon, then the requirements for plural marriage should be the same–husbands and wives should worship the true God, not idols. You’re just arguing semantics, not substance, and have circular arguments.
As for the arrogance, you have exhibited plenty of it yourself multiple times on this blog. Maybe you should go back to Gospel Principles class and brush up on the story of Hagar and the theology of 132? I guess you can see it’s not so nice when directed back at you, but you never apologize when you do it. If you want to shut down the hubris, so will I.
I agree with you about this conversation. It isn’t productive, because you won’t actually engage the problems in scripture. Instead you argue in circles.
Let me add a few other points to this issue that Kristine and I (and a boatload of other people) have a problem with. D&C 132 talks of marrying virgins. Verse 61:
Women married to other men are not virgins. There is no way that Joseph’s sealings to previously married women fit this definition. David at least knew he shouldn’t be marrying another man’s wife, so he hatched a plan to get Uriah killed. David knew this was against scripture, and didn’t need 132 to know that was wrong.
I am also bothered by verses 52 and 54.
It seems that it wasn’t Emma that was destroyed, it was Joseph. God’s admonition is exactly backwards. I think the Lord did destroy Joseph in Carthage, and his death is recorded in section 135.
“Why does D&C 132 conflict with Jacob 2? ”
Jacob 2 is correct and, at least in my mind, 132 (albeit confusing) is also right when fully vetted. My thought on this is that a marriage sealed in the temple really means nothing if it is not properly executed. Their are a lot of people that lie thier way into the Temple, or a marriage for that matter. In short, a sealing is only valid by the Holy Spirit of promise.
Secondly, and in response to “Your point about Abraham not being a member of the LDS church is quite silly.” The people in the Old Testament (including the Prophets) were under a different set of rules. Under a different law. The Savior had not come, they applied animal sacrifices and meat offerings and burnt offerings. Prior to Moses, they didn’t even have the 10 commandments. So yes, they were not LDS. They were just trying to get the basics of humanity going. In stark contrast, LDS (which is a temporary organization) members are required to live a higher law as they are given more.
I’ll admit section 132 is confusing, but at least in my mind reconciled by the notion a sealing means nothing if it isn’t followed through on my the participants and sealed by the Holy Spirit.
“but you never apologize when you do it.”
I just did in the previous post. Not quite sure where (or when as I have only visited infrequently for the past year or so) I have been arrogant.
As
As for me not addressing why people made, or did not make, certain decisions. More specifically, what Joseph Smith did and why? Quite simply, I was not there and don’t know all the facts. And really, no one does but Joseph and God know what happened. Asking me to judge events I did not witness is like asking Jesus which is the greatest law. The Pharises were expecting him to list one on them, so they could poune on him about the others. They were more focused on cornering him then finding an answer. The same reason you asked the questions that you asked.
Ken, the conditions of OT polygamy are pertinent to this discussion precisely because the 19th century Mormon practice was precipitated by Joseph questioning how Abraham and other OT prophets were justified in their practice of polygamy. They cannot have been operating under a different set of rules because it was understood that God was giving the same rules to Joseph in answer to his question. This is why polygamy is justified sometimes as part of the restoration of all things. It’s not really a restoration if it’s operating under different rules.
Ken, please disabuse me of my confusion over why 132 and Jacob 2 don’t conflict “when fully vetted.” Please vet it for me.
“The people in the Old Testament (including the Prophets) were under a different set of rules.” But Joseph was claiming to be RESTORING the polygamy of Abraham, David, Moses. To my knowledge, Joseph had wives, not concubines (Hagar could be classified as a concubine), so why didn’t Joseph have concubines? Or could we classify Fanny Alger, and the teen brides as concubines or full wives? I would think the holy spirit of promise applies to Hagar and Abraham’s sealing, as well as Jacob and Leah’s, so I think that has always applied.
Apparently Joseph was going to restore animal sacrifice. D&C 13 says
Please vet this for me, or teach me as you would in Gospel Principles.
(While you claim to have been an infrequent visitor, your comments are usually just as dismissive as the Gospel Principles comment. I’ll look for other past comments, if you want, but I’m happier to let bygones be bygones if you’re willing to be less dismissive. I can point it out in the future if you’d like, rather than drudge up the past. Maybe I can call you a Pharisee too, because I am sure that was meant in a respectful way.)
MoHer: “It seems that it wasn’t Emma that was destroyed, it was Joseph. God’s admonition is exactly backwards. I think the Lord did destroy Joseph in Carthage, and his death is recorded in section 135.” That’s a very interesting perspective. The more traditional Mormon way of looking at it (and I’m old enough to remember Emma being continually trashed in Sunday School classes) is that Emma was destroyed because she was damned for being unfaithful whereas Joseph was exalted and martyred. And yet, your interpretation is certainly more obvious when you look at the language in D&C 132. Emma’s legacy lived on as her sons led the RLDS church. You could say (as Brigham Young did) that she left the church, or you could say that the church, the Brighamites anyway, left her.
I get super tired of hearing men lament that JS married other men’s wives as if the whole of polygamy wasn’t awful for women. Why is it that once other men are slighted, it’s horrific, but when all women are subjugated and treated like property, it’s just another day? And we should be horrified that the temple sealing today is lifted straight out of D&C 132. We are accepting a polygamy-based union as our standard. We don’t admit that, but it’s true.
they were deceptions / stumbling blocks placed there by Satan
Kristine,
I’m certainly willing to concede the above as a possibility While every prophetic action creates a stumbling block for ‘somebody’, those two have had massive fallout. There are also those who say that Mormonism as a whole is a stumbling block placed by Satan to lead people away from true Christianity.
Hawkgrrrl – #63 – Amen.
“Why is it that once other men are slighted, it’s horrific, but when all women are subjugated and treated like property, it’s just another day?”
I wish I knew. I wish the church understood how humiliating it is to be a modern, college-educated woman in North America begging her church to set aside a doctrine that dehumanizes women. I wish they would consider how the headline, “Mormon Church Disavows Polygamy” might play out. Puzzled public: I thought they already did that. Women who know: No, they did that for you all. For us they kept it alive all these years and we have finally had enough.
“Maybe you should go back to Gospel Principles class and brush up on the story of Hagar and the theology of 132?”
Ok that’s an “and” not a “to”, but it had me laughing for a while. Makes Gospel Principles sound meatier than GD class.
“Why is it that once other men are slighted, it’s horrific, but when all women are subjugated and treated like property, it’s just another day?”
Indeed!
Love Mary Ann’s comment:
“Ken, the conditions of OT polygamy are pertinent to this discussion precisely because the 19th century Mormon practice was precipitated by Joseph questioning how Abraham and other OT prophets were justified in their practice of polygamy. They cannot have been operating under a different set of rules because it was understood that God was giving the same rules to Joseph in answer to his question. This is why polygamy is justified sometimes as part of the restoration of all things. It’s not really a restoration if it’s operating under different rules.”
And MH’s perspective on precisely who was destroyed.
This has been an at-times fascinating and bewildering discussion for me. The issue that I keep coming back to is that it appears that just about every idea/speculation that crossed JS’s mind soon became accepted as prophetic utterance. You could either go along with this stuff or take a walk or be excommunicated. (The issue of checks and balances in the church, then and now, is probably one for a different thread.) JS knew Emma was the biggest roadblock to acceptance of polygamy (or spiritual wifery, or whatever you want to call it), which explains why LDS Sec. 132 has JS handing the issue off to God: “Get with the program or else.” Apparently, Emma wavered a bit but in the end just said NO! Perhaps she was the only one in the church who could stand up to Joseph.
Multiple wives and concubines were at least understandable in OT times, considering the accepted culture of viewing women as property. It doesn’t necessarily follow that God actually approved or condoned the practice. Ancient people—and a number of modern ones—routinely transferred their practices onto deity. It’s a pretty handy rationale. But there’s nothing theological about it.
I wonder sometimes if we reached a point that the “victim culture” has overreached to the extent where everything is viewed by the “victim lens.”
Given the incomplete data associated with historical events, we ascribe conclusions to situations where you cannot know exactly what transpired because you cannot resurrect people’s thoughts and true motives contained solely in their minds.
Most people draw a conclusion and then use available evidence to back it up.
“we should be horrified that the temple sealing today is lifted straight out of D&C 132. We are accepting a polygamy-based union as our standard. We don’t admit that, but it’s true.”
I don’t know if we (as a couple) are ‘accepting’ as much as we are mentally ‘blocking’ it or ‘redefining it’ to never think about the connection in those terms. I guess you could call it a head in the sand approach, but I personally feel if I am able to achieve exaltation (talking theoretical here, as it is a longshot in my case) without being required to live polygamy during my earth life, then I should be able to continue living that same social order in the next life without being required to live polygamy there.
I am not as much troubled by history as I am troubled by its residual impact now.
MH/Mary Ann:
To me the rules of conduct, laws and norms have changed in the past 30 years. For example, pornography was only available from the creepy guy on the corner with a hidden stash; now, it is something that is on virtually every electronic device. I use to carry a loaded gun to school in the trunk of my car so we could go rabbit hunting immediately thereafter. Now, even though it is perfectly legal in Utah, with a CCP, to carry on gun on any school campus (except BYU), the school would absolutely freak out if they caught you with a gun. Thus, if accepted behavior has changed over 30 years, it is reasonable to conclude it has changed from 200 or 4,000 years ago.
My original point stands, and that is: Polygamy was practiced in the Bible. The Old Testament is effectively God’s dealings with a polygamist family, or the tribes of Israel. God knew these Prophet practiced polygamy, yet he gave them his blessing and blessings. I don’t know why. I don’t fully understand the practice and as mentioned I could not practice it personally. It is reasonable to conclude if he permitted it 4,000 years ago he would permit it 200 years ago under his conditions.
As I have stated many times, I accept the reasoning in Jacob 2, including 38 & 39 which you referenced. Concubines seem adulterous to me and a creepy way to treat your spouse. I don’t know why God said “concubines were given unto him of me’. I do feel it is reconciled by the fact that inappropriate marriages or shacking up in any way would not be endorsed by the Holy Spirit and would NOT be validated in the next existence. To me that is the fully vetted version. This is my view, you are certainly entitled to your interpretation.
Ken, I appreciate your response. My main issue is this idea that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Yet you note that “if accepted behavior has changed over 30 years, it is reasonable to conclude it has changed from 200 or 4,000 years ago.”
Well, if these norms are changing, is God making the changes, or is man? Using your scenario, it is easy for me to see that man’s positions on guns at schools has changed in the past 30 years. I don’t blame these changes on God (and I don’t think you do either.) Did God permit guns in schools 30 years ago, and not permit guns in schools now? Well, I don’t like blaming this changing position on God–I blame it on man every time. Is God’s influence in the guns/schools issue? Perhaps. I’m not a fan of guns in schools, but you won’t catch me saying that God is responsible for Guns out of schools, or in schools, or God changes his mind on the issue. But I can state affirmatively that God doesn’t want dead children in schools.
Using your analogy, I don’t blame the change in guns/schools on God. If there was a revelation stating that God has a position one way or the other, then we can debate it. If God says in Jacob 2, “no guns in schools” and then in D&C 132 “Guns are ok in school”, well we have a dilemma, and have to decide which of these to follow. Some peoiple are going to go with Jacob 2, some with D&C 132.
So if God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and God did make conflicting pronouncements, I’m not going to argue that God is changing his mind. I’m arguing that God is the same, and try to figure out which is God’s will, and I’m going to argue that God doesn’t want dead children, and if we have dead children, then Jacob 2 is the better scripture to follow, and that’s God’s true position.
Now you may argue that God says nothing is wrong with hunting, and 30 years ago we didn’t have dead children (instead we had dead post office workers). Well, I can see your argument, but to me the no dead children outweighs the no dead post office employees, and I’m going with Jacob 2.
Okay, I thought I was done commenting on this subject. It seems to have caused quite a buzz. I have been reading all of your comments and the thought keeps coming back to me over and over again so I read Jacob 2:24-27. It could not be more clear. Yes, there was Polygamy in the Old Testament. It states very clearly that the practice was abhorrent to God. When I was a missionary we challenged people to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it. I have also read it and prayed about it. I did in fact receive confirmation that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. Not once was I admonished to challenge anyone to read the Doctrine and Covenants and get confirmation of its truthfulness. I don’t believe I have ever even heard anyone mention doing that in church. Odd, don’t you think? Our own articles of faith say that we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. The Doctrine and Covenants are not mentioned. True, they did not exist when the Articles of Faith were written, but they were not amended when the Doctrine and Covenants were compiled. I suggest that the brethren know there are things wrong with it and that is why they don’t bother to encourage a testimony of it’s truthfulness when becoming a member. As a matter of fact, many members have never even heard of it until they have been a member for a few months. Interesting, don’t you think?
#73 Former Sheep-
From the beginning of the church to the present day, the keystone of Mormonism is the Book of Mormon.
The Book of Mormon is the means whereby a testimony is most likely to be obtained for a new or long time member of the church.
It is a book with a promise. I’ve experienced the promise made in Moroni 10:4-5.
For me the D&C is scripture, but not the on the same level as the Book of Mormon.
“My main issue is this idea that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
Agreed, but man is not the same and it is God’s mission to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. In other words, to take from A to Z. To take them from where they are and help them grow into something better.
I am not God, so I don’t understand what it would take to create a civilization. I’m sure it would require some difficult decisions at times. What comes to mind is when Samuel received revelation from God for King Saul to destroy the city of Amalek—men, women, children and cattle –everything. Saul refused and his Kingship was taken from him. 30 years ago when I first read this story it really troubled me to think God would give such an order. I can understand killing all the people creating the problems, but everyone?
Now, we have present day Syria and Iraq and the northern half is occupied by ISIL. We all know of their brutality. We all know if they are not stopped they will continue to capture and kill anyone and everyone that does not agree with them. They are indoctrinating their women and children and including them in the fight. If Amalek was as brutal and evil as ISIL, I can totally understand such an order. 30 years ago I did not understand, but with current events I now understand.
Like now, the area was consumed with war and famine. Even worse during the time of David and Solomon. I can totally see Nathan praying to God asking him what should be done with the fatherless and widows. I can totally see God allowing them to be wives of David and Solomon who had most of the wealth to take care of their basic needs. It’s not an ideal situation, but it’s not like women had many opportunities. It’s not like they could go get a job. It’s not like there were orphanages, and shelters and the dull to help the poor and needy.
As far as concubines, if God allowed it then they really weren’t concubines were they? If it was approved by God, wouldn’t that be a marriage. After all, he is the ultimate magistrate. This leads me to believe concubine may not mean the same thing it means now. When I think of a concubine it reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons when Mayor Quimby goes into a department store that sells dresses and asks the salesclerk “please give me one in wife size and two in mistress size”. Concubine may have meant they were not part of the tribes of Israel.
In short, I know what D&C 132 says, I have been around long enough to know that I don’t understand everything. I don’t understand the correlation fully, but I do understand a marriage will only stand in the hereafter (or the present) if it not sealed by the Hold Spirit. I have a testimony of the Book of Mormon. This means Joseph was a Prophet in spite of the ‘supposed’ contradictions between the two books he had a hand in bringing forth.
Ken,
There’s something to be said for having faith, but I find the “God knows but we don’t know” answer to be a complete cop out. (and yes I’m using your “respectful” terminology from comment #44.) D&C 9 (of which I have a firm testimony) says we must study it out in our minds and then ask God if it is right. So if you’re not studying it out in your mind (some people call this “putting it on a shelf”), you’re copping out, and the answer sounds like a cop out.
It is easy for me to see that genocide is ungodly. I can’t imagine God ever commanding it, and I suspect that this is one man’s “studying it out in your mind.” In extraordinary circumstances, I can see God commanding us to kill someone like Hitler, but I can’t ever imagine God commanding us to kill Hitler’s 5 year old child. Such a pretended command profanes God’s name, and I do think that many people blame God for things God had nothing to do with.
Jared, that was a fascinating admission. Are you saying you don’t have a testimony of the 4 things I mentioned back in comment 51?
A few thoughts to pass along to those interested
Don’t read any further if you don’t like “certainty”.
Y’all, need to understand something that I hope you don’t mind me expressing.
To present what I have in mind, I will draw your attention to a Dr. Mary C Neal. She drowned in a kayaking accident. But she didn’t stay dead, she returned. I’ll provide a couple of links to her story below so you can learn the details of her NDE.
Before her accident she was, in her own words not “deeply spiritual or deeply religious and had no preconceived notions about life after death. My NDE changed me profoundly in both spiritual and religious ways. I now know the promises of God to be true, that there is a life after death, and that our spiritual life is eternal. While recognizing the limitations of organized religion, I fully participate in and support it.”
I don’t know which Christian church she attends, it doesn’t matter. My purpose in bringing her up is to illustrate the before and after effect a profound spiritual experience has on ones life.
I have been participating in the Bloggernacle for many years. W&T is one of my favorite sites. It appears that the majority of those who frequent W&T are like Dr. Neal, in that, they believe to a certain extent the claims of the LDS church but have their attention focused on historic and other sundry subjects that chip away at their spirituality instead of embracing those things build deep faith.
The point I am hoping to make is church member can have spiritual experiences that move them from believing to knowing. Some spiritual experience are so compelling that they are irrefutable. This creates certainty. In this place of knowing, concerns about things like polygamy and a host of other church history conundrums do not create doubt.
I write from the perspective of certainty because of my experiences. To do otherwise would be disingenuous and offensive to Heavenly Father.
[video src="http://cbn.uds.ak.o.brightcove.com/734546207001/734546207001_2125963347001_RH64v3-WS-HD720-copy.mp4" /]
http://drmaryneal.com/
To those (not really anyone in specific in this thread, mind you) who like to point out that polygamy was practiced in the Bible, I like to point out–so was genocide. Of all the things that stood out to Joseph Smith to ask about restoring, polygamy is by far the most suspect.
Jared, I don’t mind certainty, but I’d love to hear your certainty regarding Joseph’s teen brides, sealings to married women, concubines, and Emma’s condemnation in D&C 132, especially in light of your admission that “the D&C is scripture, but not the on the same level as the Book of Mormon.” What does your certainty mean in regards to these 4 issues?
Hawk, well said.
MH-I’ve followed the teachings of Joseph Smith and it resulted in certainty. The kind of certainty that comes when one experiences the Lord as Enos, Alma, the people of king Benjamin portray in the Book of Mormon.
Teen brides, sealings to married women, and Emma’s condemnation in the D&C are troubling. I would prefer that LDS history didn’t have these issues.
They are like the difficulties that Alma the older and his followers encountered when they fled king Noah and settled in Helam only to be subjected to slavery and death. This seems like a strange way to reward their faith. Why did the Lord permit such terrible things to befall his prophet and church members (Mosiah 23-24)?
The Book of Mormon provides and answer. I think the answer can help those in our day troubled and perplexed with the issues you bring up.
20 And it came to pass that they did multiply and prosper exceedingly in the land of Helam; and they built a city, which they called the city of Helam.
21 Nevertheless the Lord seeth fit to chasten his people; yea, he trieth their patience and their faith.
22 Nevertheless—whosoever putteth his trust in him the same shall be lifted up at the last day. Yea, and thus it was with this people.
23 For behold, I will show unto you that they were brought into bondage, and none could deliver them but the Lord their God, yea, even the God of Abraham and Isaac and of Jacob.
24 And it came to pass that he did deliver them, and he did show forth his mighty power unto them, and great were their rejoicings.
(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 23:20 – 24)
The reason the Book of Mormon is the keystone of Mormonism is due to the teachings it contains and the promise it makes to those who pray about it truthfulness. As you know Joseph Smith taught that a man could get nearer to God through its teachings than any other book.
The church is under condemnation for treating it lightly. This remains the case today.
Jared, you are side-stepping the issues, and your quoting scripture is mostly irrelevant to the principles of 132. You are troubled, ok, that’s a start. But I asked you if you had a certain testimony of teen brides, sealings to married women, concubines, and Emma’s condemnation.
Instead of answering directly, you quoted scriptures irrelevant to the discussion, making me guess what you think, and I will probably guess wrong. I think you said that these issues were a stumbling block. So did Joseph’s polygamy create a stumbling block? Why does God create stumbling blocks? Doesn’t Satan create stumbling blocks? (Now I am guessing, and you are causing us to sidetrack the discussion, instead of you clearly saying, “I have/don’t have a testimony of teen brides, concubines, etc.”)
So let’s keep this on polygamy. It’s fine to quote the BoM and Jacob 2 because it is relevant to the discussion, but stumbling blocks are a tangent, and the scriptures you quoted are a complete tangent. If you want to talk scriptures, talk to Guy and his discussion of “abhor” and give us your interpretation. Don’t sidetrack the discussion here.
LOL, Ken, you actually think David’s polygamy was based on taking care of the widows and the fatherless? Can I remind you that in both the cases of Abigail and Bath-Sheba, these women became widows because David had their husbands killed? David even used his authority to force Michal to leave her second husband to return to him (under significant duress). As for Solomon’s hundreds of wives and concubines, they were not being culled from the widows among the Israelites, I can promise you that.
Hawk, Joseph also could have asked God how Jephthah was justified in offering human sacrifice (his daughter), or why the death penalty was appropriate for the sins of blasphemy and adultery. I guess we can be glad that his curiousity regarding OT practices appeared to wane after polygamy.
I’m trying to figure out if you are more like Sampson or the apostle Peter. Have you ever pondered the question? I also think you might make a good Navy Seal.
That aside, I am not trying to side step your question, if I were, I would say so.
I know by sacred experience that Joseph Smith is God’s prophet. I assume he was faithful to the end of his life. I don’t have any special insight regarding polygamy and its associated concerns.
I don’t agree that the scriptures I provided are tangential to the subject at hand. I hope you will take the time to understand why.
Remember when you climb a tall ladder your perspective takes on a more comprehensive view.
So Jared, tell me your perspective from the tall ladder of teen brides, concubines, Emma’s condemnation, and sealing to other men’s wives. I’m still waiting for a direct answer.
Ken, even FairMormon.org (very faithful apologist site) estimates that less than a third of 19th century Mormon polygamist marriages were to women who’d been married previously. While taking care of the widows and fatherless is a common argument for Mormon polygamy, it does not account for the vast majority of Mormon polygamist arrangements. There are better arguments to use in the justification of polygamy, and that site can help you become familiar with them.
I did. Let me repeat-I don’t have any special insight regarding polygamy and its associated concerns.
That means I don’t have a testimony of polygamy, as I do of many other things. I have never prayed and sought for a testimony regarding teen brides, concubines, Emma’s condemnation, and sealing to other men’s wives.
If I lived in Joseph Smith’s day and were directly concerned with these things I would pray and seek guidance. Just as some of the men and women did. We have record of their testimonies. We can choose to believe or disbelieve them.
I think the difficulties in church history are serving two purposes. One, creating a climate for those who are in a crisis of faith to turn to the Lord for answers, two, purging those who have been poised at the door ready to abandon their faith.
A question for you: which one are you? Don’t side step the question.
MH (should be MFH, My Favorite Heretic…), though Jared is man enough to answer for himself, I’ll take a stab at your accusations against the Prophet. If you bother to respond, do take some time to submit your resignation letter, b/c it’s clear that you don’t have a testimony as to the Prophetic office of Joseph Smith. Though my allegiance is first to Jesus Christ, w/o a testimony of his servant Joseph as His prophet, seer, and revelator at the applicable time (1830-1844), I’d have no use for the LDS Church, CoC, or any splinter group thereof. At least be intellectually honest within yourself.
1) “Teen” Brides – not so much an issue in the day. Squicky as it seems, old enough to bleed was old enough to (marry) breed. As King Joffrey (while still in regency by his mother) brags to his betrothed Sansa Stark, “when you ‘bleed’ [indicative of later menstrual initiation in Medieval times] I’ll put a son in you”). What we’d consider a ‘child’ bride was nothing unusual in mid-19th century America.
2) ‘Concubines’ – and WHERE do you furnish ANY substantive evidence that Joseph Smith had what we would consider a ‘concubine’, other than it being your label for any of his plural wives that he might actually have had physical relations with (ex: Fanny Alger). I should think that not only would Emma have left her husband for such caddish behavior, so many of his associates that knew him well would likewise have disassociated themselves. Of those early GAs that left the Church, I don’t see any accusations that the Prophet was maintaining some sort of harem.
3) Emma’s condemnation – your referring to after Joseph’s death? Do you recall that the poor woman, pregnant with her son David (who would unfortunately end his days in an Illinois mental institution), had a nervous breakdown following her husband’s death (quite understandable). She didn’t simply condemn polygamy as a valid institution, she outright denied that her husband had ever practiced it! That might seem fantastically delusional, but do keep in mind that those that started the RLDS Church (many of whom themselves that tried to make a go of splinter groups and all failed) practically ‘drafted’ Joseph Smith III (he was initially reluctant) and staked their claim on primogeniture. Also, since much of the Smith family holdings were intertwined with the Church, there was striving with the LDS Church and Brigham Young vs. Emma and her son. It would be understandable to deny the possibility of any OTHER offspring of Joseph Smith, though AFAIK none have ever been confirmed.
#4 – Sealing vs carrying on (literally) with other men’s wives: Again, where is the documentation that Smith was having adulterous affairs with other men’s wives? The only anecdote that I’ve ever heard is Smith asking one of the members for his wife, and she’s presented to the Prophet, the couple is sent on their way for having ‘passed the test’. While some might interpret this as supreme manipulation, take it up with pre-mortal Jehovah and how He treated Abraham and Issac (slay the kid after you had to wait until you were 100 and your wife 90 to have him).
Heretic – I don’t have myself great comfort in some things that went on re: Polygamy, especially as initially practiced, simply b/c there is so little that is documented about it, and critics and abusers alike (especially that deservedly-imprisoned cretin Warren Jeffs) have done nothing to enhance the institution. One might well ask the late Gen. Patton about his “Third Army Memorial Projects” in Germany (the practice of his units, when encountering resistance from a German town in the final weeks of WWII, would back off and level it with artillery fire without further ado regardless of civilian casualties). Difficult situations often foster drastic measures.
23 For behold, I will show unto you that they were brought into bondage, and none could deliver them but the Lord their God, yea, even the God of Abraham and Isaac and of Jacob.
24 And it came to pass that he did deliver them, and he did show forth his mighty power unto them, and great were their rejoicings.
Jared, are you saying that God used the US Government to deliver the saints from bondage in this case?
#88 Moss
I’m not sure where you’re seeing the US Government in any of my comments. Please clarify.
MH/Mary Ann,
LOL and Cop Out, I think a better description would be illogical or irrational. And my argument is! If I were to propose such reasoning at work or school I would fully expect to be fired or flunk. The difference in this case is faith. That sounds Sunday schoolish, and it is, but that doesn’t mean it is not real. This is why various sects are synonymously referred to as faiths.
I had my born again moment on my LDS mission. It was real. It was not visionary or delusional or fiction. I am not using this to win arguments or justify my position. Just the opposite, when the natural or sometimes logic man pulls me away, this event always draws me back in a magnetic way. It was the spirit of God speaking to my spirit in a way that cannot be explained by any of the senses. The spirit told me the Book of Mormon was true. It was impactful. It was the ultimate object lesson. It makes me view seemingly contradictory statements and other stores in a different light. I look at them from the perspective that there is something I am missing or something I am not understanding. And, more importantly as time has progressed I have found answers to similar questions. They came after a trial of faith (it is called a trial of faith, not a trial of knowledge) It is noted, I have contemplated this seemingly contradictory statements in D&C 132 and Jacob 2 for years. This LDS faith and teaching in the Book of Mormon have enlarged my soul and enlightened my mind. It has made be better.
If I were to look at these alleged contradictions between Jacob 2 and D&C 132 with purely secular eyes, I would accept neither. I would summarily reject polygamy, or the story of the first vision, or the gold plates, or angels, or the Bible in general. From a secular stand point, it is impossible for 40 days and nights of rain to fill the Grand Canyon let alone the whole earth. It is impossible for a man to live in the belly of a fish, or a man to raise another from the dead or cure paralysis.
So Yes, I accept these things of faith – faith I am extremely proud of and try to uphold. And yes, because of the events I have experienced I give Joseph Smith and all other LDS Prophets after him the benefit of the doubt. LOL and cast doubt all you want.
Ken, you have a good heart and many qualities that will make you an asset for people struggling with historical polygamy in your community. You aren’t afraid to tackle a difficult subject, you appear to have a strong testimony, and you admit that aspects of of polygamy are concerning. You’ll be able to empathize with those who are struggling, but still provide a solid reminder that this doesn’t have to be a dealbreaker when it comes to having a testimony of the church. I would encourage you to firm up your arguments and justifications, though. The more solid your knowledge is on the subject, the more weight your testimony will carry with the person who is struggling. I dislike bad arguments from someone who is defending the church, which is why I pointed out the irrationality of the widows and orphans line. Please take seriously my recommendation for you to become more familiar with the information at FairMormon and the gospel topics essays.
Ken-
I enjoyed reading your ‘born again moment”. It is rare to read a comment like yours in the bloggernacle.
Keep it up. Let those who are struggling with the contradictions that the Lord has permitted to develop in LDS church history understand how you are shielded from doubt because of Spiritual experiences. Doubt is swallowed up by faith. This is true in dens of lions, hot furnaces, fallible prophets, and contradictions in church doctrine and history
Mary Ann,
Thank you for the thoughtful response and suggestions.
Jared,
Thank you as well.
Jared, thanks for sharing your thoughts and bringing up NDE in #78.
Of all your quotes and comments, I probably agree with this the most:
“I don’t know which Christian church she attends, it doesn’t matter.”
It doesn’t matter, because good is good, wherever we find it.
Polygamy is not good, even if we find it in the Mormon church history, the bible, the D&C, Jacob 2 or wherever. It’s just not good, and I don’t want my daughters taught they’ll have to accept it. I don’t.
No matter what church we belong to, it doesn’t matter…polygamy is dead. Leave it dead. Thank God it’s dead.
Back in the early 2000s, we took in my wife’s sister as a lodger while she was attending a vocational training program. She was having some spiritual doubts and liked to flirt with the boys that were edgy.
She started dating/hanging out with some boys that were in a polygamous sect (in Arizona). She wanted to hang out with them on her own in the evening. My wife, wanting to steer her away from being alone with them, suggested that they come watch a movie at our house. So, that is how we came to entertain children of polygamous adherents in our house. No, I did not talk doctrine with them, and was quite happy that my sister in law did not bring them over again.
PS, one of them was named Heber…obviously not the same as Heber13!
#95 Heber13
When I said it didn’t matter, I should clarify something. I believe as you that there is much good in many churches. That said, the LDS church has something no other church has–pacific authority from God–given through a prophet the Father and Son appeared to.
Jared – #78 – “It appears that the majority of those who frequent W&T … believe to a certain extent the claims of the LDS church but have their attention focused on historic and other sundry subjects that chip away at their spirituality instead of embracing those things build deep faith.”
I believe to a certain extent the claims of the LDS church, which, very unfortunately, has its attention focused on historic and other sundry subjects that chip away at my trust and dignity instead of embracing those things that build deep devotion, love and respect for an institution that knows when and how to change.
Ellen
I’m concerned that anything I write will be taken wrong. That is too bad. I would like to have a frank discussion, but I don’t think it would be fruitful.
I wish you the best.
Jared, “I don’t have a testimony of polygamy, as I do of many other things. I have never prayed and sought for a testimony regarding teen brides, concubines, Emma’s condemnation, and sealing to other men’s wives.”
Thank you for the direct answer (finally!)
My point in asking for a testimony is that
(1) you have often stated that people don’t bear testimony at W&T near enough, and I wanted to give you that opportunity on this topic,
(2) Joseph’s actions don’t square with D&C 132 (in regards to concubines, and other men’s wives),
(3) saying you support the idea of polygamy but do not having a testimony of David and Solomon’s wives is a contradiction. Now you may not have stated this directly, but your message seems to be that if the BoM is true, then there is no need worry about anything else. I don’t support this line of reasoning.
(4) As Ken noted, D&C 132 conflicts with Jacob 2. So saying (or implying) you have a testimony of 132 and plural marriage, but not a testimony of these things is just plain contradictory. NOBODY can believe all aspects of 132 without being irrational and being accused immorality, period.
“I’m trying to figure out if you are more like Sampson or the apostle Peter. Have you ever pondered the question? I also think you might make a good Navy Seal.”
Jared, I can honestly say that not only have I NEVER pondered the question, I don’t even understand the question, but let me take a stab. Am I like Samson?
I don’t have long hair, super human strength. I haven’t had a girlfriend from any enemy countries (instead of Philistines, I guess we could classify enemies as Russians, North Koreans, Iranians, perhaps Chinese. I’ve never dated any.) I haven’t collected foreskins from 100 Philistines (or even my own foreskin). I haven’t killed a lion, or seen a beehive grow in its carcass. I’ve never enlisted in the army, navy, air force, marines, so definitely no Navy seals…. I’m guessing that I’m not like Samson.
Am I like Peter?
Ummm, I don’t think so, so let me try this one. I haven’t tried to walk on water, but like him I probably lack faith. I haven’t denied the Christ, but I probably would if my life was on the line. I’m not an apostle, nor claimed to be one. I sided with Paul, not Peter in the circumcision question. I’m not a fisherman. I haven’t seen Christ.
So….well I guess I’m more like Peter than Samson, but I’m not really like Peter either.
I’d like to invite you to write a guest post titled “Are you more like Samson or the apostle Peter?” so we can better flesh this out. I haven’t the foggiest idea where you’re going with this.
Ken,
“I think a better description would be illogical or irrational. And my argument is! If I were to propose such reasoning at work or school I would fully expect to be fired or flunk.”
Well, we don’t fire commenters here very often, but I’m glad to hear that your response about polygamy deserves a flunking grade. If you want to characterize your own arguments as “illogical or irrational” rather than a cop out, well, I won’t argue strenuously either way.
LOL
Hi Jared- in comment 81 you said
“They are like the difficulties that Alma the older and his followers encountered when they fled king Noah and settled in Helam only to be subjected to slavery and death. This seems like a strange way to reward their faith. Why did the Lord permit such terrible things to befall his prophet and church members (Mosiah 23-24)?”
Those scriptures explain that the terrible things that happened were to make the church members realize that only The Lord could deliver them from bondage. So, in the context of polygamy, are you saying that the church was put in this position to teach them that only The Lord could deliver them from this trial? That The Lord used the US Govenment to deliver the saints? Or am I reading too much into the leveraging of those scriptures in this context?
I mention the US Government because without their intervention began the end of polygamy, or the deliverance from the trial, if you will.
Duggie,
Once again you come in here guns a blazin, accusing me of all sorts of apostasy, not reading what I wrote very closely, and getting your facts wrong. Now here’s the place where I call you dumb for making up things I didn’t say, or making up facts altogether. Ok glad that part is over.
1. Teen brides: “The mean age of first marriages in colonial America (aka around 1830) was between 19.8 years to 23.7…” Funny thing is, that’s pretty close to today’s numbers too!
Even Brian Hales, who was widely cited in the recent LDS.org essay, said that “Matrimonies for females who were fourteen years of age were eyebrow-raising but not scandalous in the 1840s.” Well, I guess Warren Jeffs sealing to a 14 year old girl was eyebrow raising, but not scandalous in 2000 as well.
“2) ‘Concubines’ – and WHERE do you furnish ANY substantive evidence that Joseph Smith had what we would consider a ‘concubine’.” Doug, go read the comment again. I didn’t furnish any evidence, I asked Ken if Fanny Alger could be considered a concubine. (Ken never responded.) To my knowledge, Joseph had NO CONCUBINES, and wasn’t meeting the scriptural definition. Fanny and Helen Mar Kimball, since they were teens, MIGHT meet a definition of a concubine, but most people consider them wives, not concubines. In fact, I don’t know anyone that calls them concubines–I was just asking Ken if that was a possibility to fulfill scripture. (You really need to read things much closer there Duggie. Quit mischaracterizing what I said.)
3. Another mischaracterization of what I said. Go back and read it again. Everyone else understood it, but you’re waaayyyy off.
4. “where is the documentation that Smith was having adulterous affairs with other men’s wives?” First of all, I never made that accusation. I was very clear that I said “sealed to other men’s wives”, I never said JS was having sex with them. You made another leap I didn’t say. READ MORE CAREFULLY IF YOU’RE GOING TO JUMP INTO A CONVERSATION HALF-COCKED. IT MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID. THAT’S 3 FALSE ACCUSATIONS IN A ROW.
But since you asked the question, go read Brian Hales response about sexual relations between Joseph and women married to other men. Hales makes a very legalistic case that this was not adultery, but rather consecutive marriages. For example, here’s one case, but Hales documents many more. In short
1. Sylvia Sessions married Windsor Lyon on April 21, 1838 in a legal ceremony performed by Joseph Smith.
2. Sylvia conceives three children with Windsor.
3. Windsor was excommunicated in November of 1842.
4. Due to the excommunication, Windsor and Sylvia were separated. So they are legally married but they separate.
5. Then Joseph is sealed to Sylvia after the excommunication of Windsor.
6. Josephine, a daughter was born to Sylvia, and her mother said “that Josephine was actually Joseph Smith’s daughter.” Hales goes on to say “This daughter, I believe, is Joseph Smith’s actual daughter.” Furthermore, “there’s a whole Fisher family in Bountiful that descend from this marriage. I have been in contact with some of the descendants, and they are starting to say maybe we need to make a claim that we’re actually coming from Joseph and not from Windsor Lyon.”
7. Joseph Smith is killed in June 1844. Windsor is rebaptized and then Sylvia and Windsor come back together and the legal marriage is still intact, since it was never legally dissolved in the first place.
Here’s how Hales responds to these facts “Now, is this weird? Yeah, this is weird. Is it sexual polyandry? Is it immoral? Is it breaking the law of chastity that Joseph taught? No it isn’t.”
My question to you all. Since Sylvia was still legally married to Windsor but sealed to Joseph when she conceives Josephine, and then picks up her marriage with Windsor as if nothing has happened following the separation, (1) is this adultery, and (2) is this keeping the spirit of D&C 132:61 which says ?
I gave a VERY brief summary of Brian’s lengthy talk. He said much more, and talked about more relationships than this one that I’ve highlighted. Go read it. See the FAIR website for this and other stories:
FAIR: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-joseph-smiths-sexual-polyandry-and-the-emperors-new-clothes-on-closer-inspection-what-do-we-find
Brian’s website: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/faq/sexual-polyandry/
You’re not going to get a more honest, faithful, apologetic response that’s based in facts than Brian Hales. He’s actually a good friend of mine, I respect him a lot, he sings in the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and he’s a great guy. If you REALLY want to learn about polygamy from a “faithful” source, Brian’s the best one to learn from. He knows EVERYTHING there is to know. Even LDS.org quotes him, and quotes him ALOT. People like Todd Compton and Michael Quinn are bound to disagree with some of his conclusions (thinking Brian is “too nice”), but Brian at least has his facts together.
Now go get your facts together before shooting off your mouth again.
Just returned from seeing, “I’m Still Alice”. Worthwhile movie.
There is a lot to respond to but not enough time.
MH-Where I am going with the Sampson, Peter, Navy Seal thing. Humor, a great attribute. Translated, lighten up. Have more fun. Climb higher on your spiritual ladder so you can see things more clearly from a spiritual perspective.
Moss-this life is short but meaningful. We are here to be tried and proven. We shouted for joy at the prospect of coming here. There is opposition in all things. All is a big word.
I believe the Lord permitted the difficulties the church is experiencing with its history for His own purposes.
Mosiah 23-24 reveals some things about how Heavenly Father accomplishes His work of bringing immortality and eternal life to those willing follow Him.
The message is that He will deliver those who seek His help when he allows trials and difficulties to come upon us.
Jared, I didn’t know Peter was funny. (I guess I can see it in Samson.) But I’d still love to have you guest post on that topic!!! (I’m smiling when I write that, but serious too! Will you do it?)
Jared – #101 – I may have crossed a line, so I should just step out now. I don’t like the harshness this topic brings out in me.
When I asked my mother about polygamy 40 years ago, the gist of her response was: don’t question a woman’s lot in life. My daughter knows her worth better than I did. She doesn’t ask me about polygamy because she knows it’s wrong. How easy will it be for her to stay connected to a church that condones it?
“Remember when you climb a tall ladder your perspective takes on a more comprehensive view.” OMG.
As for NDEs, I recently has my second heart attack. Heart stopped, breathing stopped. At some point, after the paddles and compressions, they started again. Not sure how many minutes I lost, but I saw exactly what I expect to see when they don’t restart me–nothing.
I always suggest reading Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World for explanations of NDEs and the like. Or you can fill your mind with fanciful certainty. You can lead a full life with either.
#111 – I’m waiting for the guy who has a NDE not unlike Homer Simpson’s — “I was in this wonderful place with fire and sulphur EVERYWHERE, and little guys in red pajamas running around with pitchforks, stabbing me in the butt.”
Ellen: “When I asked my mother about polygamy 40 years ago, the gist of her response was: don’t question a woman’s lot in life. My daughter knows her worth better than I did. She doesn’t ask me about polygamy because she knows it’s wrong. How easy will it be for her to stay connected to a church that condones it?” This is the very topic of a post I’m working on right now for BCC, although it’s about the temple experience rather than historical polygamy. These answers don’t cut it for our daughters. They didn’t cut it for me, honestly, and I’m not even sure they cut it for my mother, but the world was more sexist in the 40s when she came of age, and in the 80s when I came of age. In the year 2020, my daughter will find the role laid out for her to be laughable. She already does at age 12.
MH-Thanks for the invitation, but my schedule right now is loaded with deadlines.
Let’s revisit the subject again in the days ahead.
#107 (Heretic) – I agree that Brian Hales, though obviously apologetic, covers the subject thoroughly.
1.There’s a HUGE difference between JS and Warren Jeffs. Jeffs knowingly committed statutory rape, regardless of how he tried to justify the crime on religious grounds. In Smith’s day, the age of consent was still based on English common law, which was TEN (squick!). The “child brides” accusation is a modern one, arising from a change in laws (which, BTW, have nothing to do with historical LDS polygamy) regarding age minimums for marriage and/or consent to sexual relations. Citing ‘average first marriage age’ stats is a case of what Samuel Clemens would call “Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”
2. We’re in agreement there. A few of your posts prior indicated otherwise, but if you’re speaking ‘tongue in cheek’, ok, that was unclear.
3. A misunderstanding, which going back quite a few posts cleared up. Emma was both ‘condemned’ (an RM roomie in my early days in the Church expressed the opinion that Emma was effectively arm-twisted into allowing Joseph to practice polygamy, else NO ONE would have) and she later in life denied that her late husband had practiced it and condemned it herself. For reasons I already pointed out, besides her living in denial, she and her sons had reason to lay claim to Church properties in Illinois and Missouri, which she might have felt were part of the Smith estate, and therefore would deny anyone else claiming descent.
4. We DO agree that JS was SEALED to other men’s wives, which of itself seems squicky to me. Accusations of adultery with regards to the legal niceties of a proper divorce (and keep in mind that in the minds of many, to remarry AFTER even a LEGAL divorce was still adultery, in those days) were not unheard of, due to foulups and loss of communication not unheard of in frontier America. Andrew Jackson’s wife herself was subjected to this, which led to the then-failed Presidential candidate (1828) challenging one of her supposed accusers to a duel (both men fired their pistols into the air). Though nowadays the Church is far more thorough, especially when authorizing a temple sealing where one or both have been divorced, it might be understandable that Lt. Gen. Joseph Smith (as well as Mayor of Nauvoo Smith) might consider himself the “law” (ala Judge Dredd?) and have expedited the matter.
What I find interesting is that IF the Fishers are indeed possible descendants of Joseph Smith via Josephine Windsor (the name itself seems to be a big, fat, hint!), then why haven’t they been DNA tested? I can think of scenarios where the results would say “possible” or even “likely”, without being sufficient proof of legal paternity, but there is also a very possible “definitely not” result. IDK why this hasn’t been done, unless the members of the Fisher family are reluctant to do so. I’m fairly sure the present Church establishment doesn’t want to touch THAT one. Another case of the wooden men piloting iron ships nowadays (sigh). Pardon the nautical stuff from this ex-bubblehead.
Douglas, I don’t know if you’ve seen how expensive DNA testing is. If you want to do it for genealogical purposes, My Heritage is offering the following deal. (I received an email with the following info.)
I’m sure it is way more expensive if you want to tie it to a long dead Joseph Smith whose DNA isn’t very accessible. But I’ll bet you can contact the Fishers and donate some money to their DNA testing if you feel so inclined.
On Hales’ website he indicates that DNA testing has been done on descendants of Josephine Lyons but due to other family relations with the Smith family the results are inconclusive. We can’t prove or disprove a relation to Joseph with the data.
As far as sealings to other men’s wives, at least some of them seem to have occured because the husbands were not members, inactive, or in other words deemed “not celestial kingdom material.” With a sealing to Joseph, the women still had an opportunity to get to the celestial kingdom based on their own merits. It’s weird, but many aspects of sealings at the time (adoptions into the families of church leaders, talk of dynasties, etc.) are completely at odds with how we think of family sealings today.
As for the age of consent, I was a little shocked to discover at least two instances in my family of girls entering into monogamous marriages at the age of 14 during pioneer times. One set was active members of the church, the other set was not. I’m still not wild about the Helen Mar Kimball thing, but consensual marriage at 14 apparently did happen.
Marriage at age 14 is still legal in some states, and it happens today too.
Doesn’t make it right!
#119 – certainly in “Pennsyltucky” (that part of PA not in the greater Philadelphia and Pittsburgh metro areas, some also exclude Harrisburg and State College), best described as “Alabama w/o the swamps”. Probably more a holdout for making an unplanned teenaged pregnancy ‘respectable’. From what I understand of Georgia law (at least as of 1976, since I had a friend that ran off from Central Florida with his then g/f to marry against their respective parents’ wishes), the groom still had to be at least 16 BUT could not be older than 18 if the bride was under 16, nor older than 21 if the bride was at least 16 but still a minor. In any case, minors still had to get parental permission (which in the case of the erstwhile quarterback that I snapped to was forged and therefore rendered the marriage quite annullable).
I’m certain it’s not the COST of DNA testing that deters resolution as to whether the Fishers are descended from JS. Privacy issues maybe? Purpose?
The very fact that no known issue came from the polygamous marriages of JS would indicate that one of the purposes outlined in Jacob 2, to raise up a ‘righteous seed’, utterly failed. Perhaps the old boy (actually, since he was murdered at age 38, rather “Young” (wink) boy still…) just didn’t have the time. I really can’t see HOW with all his duties as the President of the Church alone, let alone Presidential candidate, Lt. General of the Nauvoo Legion, etc. how the man managed to keep things ‘real’ even with Emma! The Prophet’s time management skills and/or personal stamina must have been superhuman.
Doug, you should have read Mary Ann’s comment 117 about DNA before you posted.
I found the first part of this article very relatable and almost a mirror image of my own experience. However, I have a hard time remaining a believer and forgiving Joseph Smith for his actions. I understand that if God has re-established His church on the earth in the latter days, he has to work with imperfect vessels. There is a big difference between imperfect and highly suspect/likely criminal. I myself am imperfect, and thus, I do not expect perfection in others. But is it too much to hold to a higher standard men who have professed to be God’s mouthpiece for the whole church, even the world? For Brigham Young to institute racism in the church is one thing, but for ten successive prophets to follow suit is disturbing and makes me question their divine authority. Unless God himself is a racist. Growing up I never had much of a problem with early polygamy in the church. Truthfully, I don’t really care if people choose to practice it now if they are consenting adults. However, I do not believe that polygamy was revealed by God. And the way Joseph Smith was practicing it was, putting it lightly, “messed up”. My biggest problem is that he consistently lied to Emma. He deceived her, cheated on her, humiliated her, hurt her and then had the audacity to publicly condemn her in the doctrine and covenants. And when a man goes that far to cover up his deception, can you really put your faith in him in any other matter? Do you really believe that of all the men that God could have chosen to restore his gospel that Joseph Smith was the best candidate? Because God, being omniscient, would have known that Joseph was going to royally mess it up. Surely, there were others who could have done the work without all the scandal.