- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just a few thoughts on the timeline. I don’t think BY found a revelation on polygamy in his drawer and thought, oh, now it all makes sense. It’s probable that they did come across it, but it was well known. Finding it wasn’t what made them publish it, rather the timing was finally right to announce publicly what everyone already knew.
Is 132 the revelation that JS shared with others? I kind of think either it’s a fabrication to recreate the lost revelation or else it’s a highly doctored version. That’s my own bias and I don’t have anything to point to except that it doesn’t sound like JS and it doesn’t sound like Nauvoo-era polygamy.
But there definitely was a revelation that JS shared with others. William Law, in the Nauvoo Expositor, said HS had shown him the revelation, and the Expositor, of course, was printed during JS’s lifetime.
JS was a polygamist; that much is as certain as just about anything we know about him. Emma knew about it. That’s also pretty certain.
Also, regarding Section 101 and the reworking of the D&C. That’s often used to show that JS didn’t practice polygamy and that BY was the originator of it and later revised history. But those claims are pretty poorly founded:
On Own Now wrote:On not including D&C 132 until the 1876 edition of the D&C – Early polygamy was officially a secret, but it was a poorly kept one. In the Nauvoo era, everyone in the country, in and out of the Church, seemed to know that JS was many wives. The Warsaw Signal and the Nauvoo Expositor were pretty clear about it. Even during the last few weeks of JS’s life, the minutes of the Nauvoo City Council were published in the Church-owned Nauvoo Neighbor, including these words hinting at it from the Mayor (JS): “They make it a criminality for a man to have a wife on the earth while he has one in heaven, according to the keys of the Holy Priesthood.” Soon after establishing the settlements of Utah, the Church announced the revelation on polygamy by reading it from the pulpit in conference in August of 1852 and it was published in the Deseret News a couple weeks later. It’s true that it wasn’t included in the D&C for almost 25 more years, but the 1876 edition was the first printing of the D&C in Utah, and the first new edition of the work since JS’s death, so it’s not like the Church sprang it on the people at that point. It’s an oft-cited fact to say that D&C 132 wasn’t included until the 1876 edition, but honestly, I don’t know what the point of that factoid is as it pertains to polygamy.
The original section 101 that stated that monogamy was the law of the Church had a dubious beginning. It was inserted in the 1835 edition of the D&C by vote of the committee in charge of the publication, run by Oliver Cowdery and Sydney Rigdon, two staunch anti-polygamists. And the vote to include the statement was taken while JS was in the East. Furthermore, it’s not a revelation at all, but a statement of policy. That’s the history. My interpretation of it is that OC was trying to force the Church into an official position that wouldn’t let JS continue the polygamy concept.
QuestionAbound wrote:
2:30-- (From the original 1830 edition)
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people: otherwise, they shall hearken unto these things.”
Notice the colon after the word people?
That gives verse 30 a distinct meaning.
That punctuation was changed in 1849 by Orson Pratt and now reads:
“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.”
The punctuation change give a whole new meaning to the verse.
I didn’t know about this change. For the last year or so, I have strongly believed that Jacob 2:30 is interpreted completely wrong. I believe it’s saying:
Quote:For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me (which is what I have been doing without polygamy since I led Lehi out of Jerusalem), I will command my people to be monogamous; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (seeking to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon).
Great timeline. I believe that you will find yourself woefully short on time. I would hand out a copy of the modern timeline (beginning with JS) to the audience and then read the timeline from a projector at the front of the class. I would then wrap up with the statement from BoM that polygamy seems to be a temporary condition for specific circumstances only – and that monogamy appears to be the official order of heaven.
If anyone has further questions, I am sure they will seek you out.
Thanks to everyone for the support!!! For those who feel that I should focus on the modern-day timeline, where and how do I begin?
And, what can I include? There is SO much…so much denial…so many marriages…
So much of what we “know” isn’t concrete. Some of what we have is second or third-hand information, so I can’t talk about it like it’s fact.
I am not 100% sure that JS practiced polygamy.
Ugh.
There is a book that I understand that the GA’s use when people ask questions about polygamy. It is titled: In Sacred Loneliness The plural Wives of Joseph Smith by: Todd Compton.
I haven’t read it yet. It looks like it contains everything you would want to know.
For your presentation, you need to consider your audience & keep it on their level.
Too much detail & it will get you into the minefield I was talking about earlier.
Good Luck
I would start with the time Joseph Smith took the first plural wife, and that he had 33 wives from xx year to xx year. Just state it like a fact, like you were talking about the Declaration of independence in 1776. It’s just a fact.
From there, your time line was great as you listed it.
I bet the kids will just assume everyone knows it and not even bat an eye.
I’ve looked through the thread and I didn’t see this mentioned. I wouldn’t hesitate to point out the essays and how to find them, nor would I hesitate to quote directly from them. Some of the stuff in them does fit into a timeline. Don’t make it complicated. Stick to the timeline focus you were given. You don’t want to end up with a controversial presentation that could lead to someone arguing about it – and you don’t need to teach them about polygamy. Fight the urge to try to do that.
You might start with commending the bishop (I think you said he assigned this) for his willingness to have this be discussed. Even maybe mention some people leave the church as the see these hard topics and have no faithful place to talk through them and they feel rejected when they are shut down when they bring it up. Maybe even acknowledge that for some this is hard for them to even hear and they don’t want to talk about it. But there needs to be something between those two. I know I could say both with complete honesty and I think it will help calm people down and be willing to discuss a bit.
and if you take ALL the advice given here, you may have a good 1 to 2 hours of stuff.
QA, Do you know when this presentation will be? LookingHard wrote:You might start with commending the bishop (I think you said he assigned this) for his willingness to have this be discussed. Even maybe mention some people leave the church as the see these hard topics and have no faithful place to talk through them and they feel rejected when they are shut down when they bring it up.
I like that approach…gives the reason why it should be brought up. Could be the way to tee it up, and then say…”So…let’s review what we know so there are no surprises for you when your friends ask you about it. We know Joseph Smith started practicing in xx when he took his first plural wife, then …” and go through the timeline with what happened.Leave it up to the bishop to tackle the hard topics like “why did they do this?”
Wow! I can’t believe that your bishop really asked you to do this. A lot of great suggestions have been offered so far. You have a great timeline outlined, but I’m afraid you would only get partially through it in 10 minutes.
Old-Timer wrote:With only 10 minutes, I would skip the Biblical stuff entirely, lay out the modern-day timeline, and focus on the current situation – much like what Heber13 said.
I agree, although you could open as LH suggested:
LookingHard wrote:You might start with commending the bishop (I think you said he assigned this) for his willingness to have this be discussed. Even maybe mention some people leave the church as the see these hard topics and have no faithful place to talk through them and they feel rejected when they are shut down when they bring it up. Maybe even acknowledge that for some this is hard for them to even hear and they don’t want to talk about it. But there needs to be something between those two.
From here, I don’t think it would hurt to say something about how there were examples from the Bible when polygamy was practiced. And as Heber said, that could transition to Joseph Smith’s ideas and practices with polygamy:
Heber13 wrote:Perhaps mention the biblical practice, and the work Joseph was doing on the bible which may have raised the questions in his mind about it.
Then, I would focus on events in the timeline from 1831 onward and perhaps draw some things from the Essays. Good luck!
Re. the timeline: I don’t have the dates handy, but somewhere in that 1830-33 period, there are reliable accounts of JS receiving supposed instructions to marry “Lamanite”/Native American women for several purposes. To make them white and delightsome, gain access to their people for missionary work, or maybe just access to their land. I don’t know details. If this is anything like a presentation in my daughter’s YSA ward about two years ago, leadership wants the upshot to be: here are more details about Mormon polygamy, minus ANY acknowledgement of the coercion involved, and here’s what we want you to think of it.
That’s great for the kid who never cared in the first place; they still don’t care. For mine who actually went out and read In Sacred Loneliness, it’s a feminist awakening and the beginning of a real and very personal distrust of leaders and their priorities. It’s empowering and heartbreaking.
Having someone like you there who is giving even subtle signals – permission for them to have their own thoughts and feelings – is a good thing.
Tell the historical truth without spin, one way or the other. I’m sorry to be MIA these past weeks. The presentation went well-enough. I presented what we could find in scripture as “fact”
And then…the bishop got up and did his part and told the youth and parents that this was a commandment once.
For some reason, that comment from him made something break inside of me. Like, I literally felt something snap in my heart. I don’t know why or what, but it happened and it was a bit paralyzing for me.
I’m still stinging a bit from it and so I just haven’t wanted to post here as a follow-up until I could do so calmly.
I thought I had found a “happy” place with the church organization until this assignment.
Not only has it put me in a place of loss with the organization, but it has even created a huge wedge between me and my husband and that, I feel, is the greater loss.
We have had many discussions on this topic. He is a convert and a TBM, through and through.
That said, he doesn’t believe that JS practiced polygamy.
After the “commandment” comment from the bishop, my husband defended the bishop’s comment by agreeing that it was a commandment.
I finally asked him: “If it was a commandment, then WHO was commanded?”
JS? Well, my husband doesn’t think JS practiced it.
BY? It can’t be him b/c the revelation came to JS.
My husband had no answer and we haven’t spoken of it since.
Part of me feels like my trust of even my own husband has diminished. Over … THIS! Of all things.
I’m just at a loss…
But, THANK YOU to everyone who supported me through this whole process.
I appreciate this community more and more.
- (From the original 1830 edition)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.