- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
If you look at the responses in this thread, limited to about a dozen or so people, you see that there hasn’t been much uniformity in how information about JS’ polygamy has been disseminated. That’s just a dozen or so people, imagine the different stories from millions. I’m sure there are still many, many members that do not know. Joni wrote:tl;dr. If everyone already knew because it was openly discussed, then the Church wouldn’t have needed to release essays about it, and my husband should stop acting so darn self-righteous.
Right, and I agree with your other points as well. What happens when someone that’s never been exposed to JS’ polygamy is thrust into the position of teaching the gospel doctrine class or seminary? What else can they do but perpetuate their knowledge, the knowledge that JS never practiced polygamy. It creates pockets of people that know and pockets that don’t. Human nature takes over, people feel pride because they know something that someone else doesn’t know (or they aren’t troubled by an issue that is troubling for others). Isn’t that an element of our culture? Jared Hess (Mormon) encapsulated that fairly well in his movie Nacho Libre. “They don’t think I know a butt load of crap about the gospel. But I
dooo.” I concede that this isn’t unique to our church, it’s human nature to use anything and everything that is at our disposal to measure ourselves against others and maybe brag about the areas where we come out on top. Having knowledge of the secrets of Mormonism, or maybe knowledge of “deep doctrines?” Sounds like an opportunity for pride to creep in to me.
Mormon history doesn’t have a butt load of crap to do with the gospel but you wouldn’t think it the way it’s presented during the 3 hour block.
How I found out:
1) I knew BY was a polygamist. I guess there’s no hiding that one.
2) I had an idea that JS was also a polygamist but I figured it was limited to one or two additional wives, something to restore the practice that really didn’t get started until BY. This is what was hinted at (never openly discussed) in church lessons, institute, etc. I was also similarly taught (not official, off the books, never addressed directly) that there would be polygamy in heaven.
Mid-story side note. Why don’t people bat an eye about BY’s polygamy but feel the need to keep JS pure from the practice of polygamy?
Person 1: BY had 50+ wives.
Person 2: Yeah, justification 1, justification 2, justification 3, justification 4,…
Person 1: Joseph Smith had a few extra wives.
Person 2: What!!?!?
👿 Anti👿 Mormon👿 Lies!Person 1: Why don’t you tell me how you really feel about the practice of polygamy?
I mean, if we’re coming up with justifications and getting our garments in a twist over the implications that our venerated prophet practiced polygamy, what might that tell us? Back to the story.
3) Polygamy went on my shelf. I didn’t think twice about it for years and years.
4) I started getting curious. I probably googled my way into JS had 30+ wives territory.
5) I came across a Rock Waterman blog post where he makes the argument that JS didn’t practice polygamy. It was others that practiced it and tried to attach the practice to JS to legitimize what they were doing. JS actively fought polygamy. I may be mischaracterizing his article, it’s been a long time since I’ve read it. My point is that it was written in 2010 and there was
stilllots of “did he, didn’t he?” debate going on. 6) I googled some more. A lot more.
I also wonder how much this phenomenon affects our spectrum of views on polygamy… At one point we’re teaching that polygamy is essential for (some degree of) salvation. Leaders want to make sure there’s a link back to Joseph to legitimize it. After the manifesto the prophet is having to make declarations that he will never lead the church astray in a last ditch effort to get people to end the practice. Maybe leaders felt a similar need, they wanted to show how Joseph
didn’tpractice polygamy (true or otherwise) in an effort to delegitimize the practice. Maybe it’s related to a “look to Joseph in everything” mindset (that I feel is still an issue today) and there’s some presentism mixed in as well.
nibbler wrote:1) I knew BY was a polygamist. I guess there’s no hiding that one.
2) I had an idea that JS was also a polygamist but I figured it was limited
Isn’t it interesting that BY is not shocking or up for debate. Either people don’t put as much stock in his prophet role, or else the fact people know it makes it a non issue. Well…not a “non-issue”…it is an issue for many….just the idea of it…but…there is no debate if he did it. That part is taken away.When it is more secretive…and there is more speculation…it seems to bring out more emotion on both sides of the aisle about it…more opinions and more application to many things.
There is a lesson in that, I think. If you WANT speculation to spur discussion and get headlines and get discussions going…less info is good for that. If you want less criticism and attention…then just spilling the beans and beating the speculators to the story is the best way to just put the issue to bed. If everyone knew JS practiced it, there would be less of a story. But even still…we have so much speculation around it.
For me…it seems like many other things in the restoration process…it was developing…and not fully developed and finished by JS…kind of dabbled with and not very successful. Kind of like how he worked on revising the bible with his “translation”. There is no doubt he was doing it…but we don’t know exactly why or how and it is interesting we don’t really use his translation version in the church as we accept KJV. I think Polygamy was kind of like that…it wasn’t fully restored and there is speculation on what he was doing and why. Then BY picks up the baton and seems to institutionalize it…we don’t have any questions about that…we just have questions what JS would have done and if he would have done it the same way or not or if it was a BY thing.
nibbler wrote:
Quote:Mormon history doesn’t have a [much of anything]/butt load of crap to do with the gospel but you wouldn’t think it the way it’s presented during the 3 hour block.
And if I say, Hey, Mormon polygamy does not do right by women. I think we should disavow it completely going forward, I essentially get told (by the church, not here), What does that have to do with faith/repentance/baptism? Stop mucking around with non-essentials.It’s heads, women lose/tails, women lose.
I agree, Ann. We don’t want to dismiss it and leave it out there as “we still believe it and will live it in heaven”. We want to disavow it and say it is not required, was lived for a time, and we don’t believe it anymore. Women and heavenly mother are on equal ground. Period. Done…now…let’s get back to talking about gospel principles that do matter. Ann wrote:And if I say, Hey, Mormon polygamy does not do right by women. I think we should disavow it completely going forward, I essentially get told (by the church, not here), What does that have to do with faith/repentance/baptism? Stop mucking around with non-essentials.
It’s heads, women lose/tails, women lose.
Yeah.
😥 The three hour block has traditionally spent a lot of time covering history and it’s been that way for forever. I feel like we’ve got to spend some time during the three hour block teaching a more correct version of the history just to combat the prevailing narratives. Sort of a ‘give equal time’ thing and buried essays does not make for equal time.
Mine is more of a lament that we made the church itself and the founding leaders the focus of our attention. We can’t make history the focus of our attention and then claim that we shouldn’t focus on history as an excuse for when history becomes inconvenient.
nibbler wrote:Ann wrote:And if I say, Hey, Mormon polygamy does not do right by women. I think we should disavow it completely going forward, I essentially get told (by the church, not here), What does that have to do with faith/repentance/baptism? Stop mucking around with non-essentials.
It’s heads, women lose/tails, women lose.
Yeah.
😥 The three hour block has traditionally spent a lot of time covering history and it’s been that way for forever. I feel like we’ve got to spend some time during the three hour block teaching a more correct version of the history just to combat the prevailing narratives. Sort of a ‘give equal time’ thing and buried essays does not make for equal time.
Mine is more of a lament that we made the church itself and the founding leaders the focus of our attention. We can’t make history the focus of our attention and then claim that we shouldn’t focus on history as an excuse for when history becomes inconvenient.
Additionally I think we have made the church and its history the focus over the gospel itself sometimes.
DarkJedi wrote:Additionally I think we have made the church and its history the focus over the gospel itself sometimes.
As good a force as it may manage to be, Mormonism is not God’s gift to the world;
Christis. I found out from a church historian! I like to brag about this little experience because I thought it was cool. More importantly he helped me see some of it in a way that I wouldn’t have considered without his insight. Last of all he said, he wished it was more out in the open because it would help a lot. At the time I didn’t know what he meant by “help a lot” but I think I do now. I could spend hours on why polygamy doesn’t get under my skin but I won’t. I am the irritating woman who it doesn’t bother me. I don’t see myself practicing it but I don’t condemn those who did (men or women). It was weird and messy.
For me it helps me to understand that Emma was a large part of the reason JS polygamy was secret. She never bought into it. (That’s a whole thread in itself). Her not buying in was something foreign to Joseph. She had been his full companion from day one of their lives together. She believed in the First Vision, the Angel Moroni, the Book of Mormon translation, the New Church, Zion and all. She abandoned her family for him. We will never have the record (yes we have some info) to know all that transpired between Joseph and Emma. I can imagine though it came as a stunning surprise to Joseph that Emma wouldn’t go along like she had up till then. Before they or the church could work it out, Joseph was dead.
Brigham and Emma, never saw eye to eye, and parted even worse. Until Emma died she stood by the idea that her husband had not been a polygamist. The struggle was drawn out in newspaper interviews and among the divided religion. Somewhere along the way it became easier to just hide the mess in the back of the closet.
How to go forward is no easy task. Yes a change could be made in our sealing policy (I agree it should. The old one is pointless.) Making a full clear statement has messy implications also. I don’t even have a good suggestion on how to proceed. It’s going to be a long conversation. I think everyone wants it to just go away on it’s own.
Quote:Ann –
As good a force as it may manage to be, Mormonism is not God’s gift to the world; Christ is.
Amen.
Joni, I too, have been a life long member and knew about polygamy in general, but I never knew about Joseph Smith’s role in it until recent years and I am a guy in my fifties. The superficial “knowledge” I had about polygamy was also presented as something that would be considered noble as well, like “these poor pioneer women had lost their husbands needed support and so brother xxxxx stepped up and married them to provide for them”. Similar to your experience, polygamy was barely mentioned in any church setting I was in growing up, so you can bet I was upset when I learned about it so recently. In fact, when people give the old “everybody knows Joseph Smith was a polygamist and had 30 wives – what’s wrong with you?” argument, it makes me want to scream. Or at least begin discussing the stories that are true and very unsettling that I can just about be sure the people finding fault with my lack of knowledge about polygamy in my younger years do not know. Why not bring up the story of Zina and Henry and how they were manipulated? I don’t know how anyone can sift through the evidence supporting that story and be okay with it. How about the verbiage of D &C 132 – have your husband read through that from your perspective and see if he is okay with it. I’m not and have no clue how it could be considered divine. Yes, polygamy is a hot button for me.
I wish my leaders understood that (for me) it’s not about Joseph Smith’s polygamy. But, How did I find out that my leaders won’t disavow the coercion that was common in Mormon polygamy?
How did I find out that very “evolved” Mormon men like Bushman and Givens skirt around this issue for the most part?
How did I find out that my daughters’ teachers and bishops and other respected men in their lives would reinforce polygamy as God’s will?
How did I find out that very few men in my life can conceive of the effect of Section 132 on a woman’s psyche?
These disappointing realizations came by discussing Joseph Smith, of course, but I have no real interest in his polygamy per se. He’s not my husband, brother in the gospel, or current prophet. I can let the past go, but it seems they won’t. They look backwards, straight through us as though we’re invisible. I’m frankly shocked that the polygamy essays have stood unchanged this long. That was when the ground opened up for me. The impasse is real and it’s beginning to look permanent.
I think it’s a bridge that many church leaders are too afraid to cross. The Race and the Priesthood essay laid the ban at the feet of Brigham Young, preserving Joseph Smith’s legacy in the process. I think many people wanted polygamy to fall into that same category, something that could be laid at the feet of Brigham Young, except polygamy could be tied back to Joseph.
Polygamy and how it was practiced represents a challenge to a person that many Mormons consider to be just as larger than life as Noah, Moses, and Abraham (provided people of their exploits even existed). When you lift someone up on a pedestal like that I can see how people may find themselves scrambling to justify the practice or work it into their belief structure. If
theydid it it couldn’tbe wrong. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways. I must wrestle to see how the practice was right. Ann wrote:I can let the past go, but it seems they won’t. They look backwards, straight through us as though we’re invisible.
The culture has a strong tendency to look toward Joseph in everything. I think leaders are afraid to let go of the past, that’s where their faith may be placed.
The more I look at this, the more it seems to me that leaders – despite the huge attempt lately especially to emphasize grace, Brad Wilcox, and all the rest – still operate in a salvation through works mental space. And Joseph has to have been so nearly perfect that he only needs a “little help” from grace. He can’t have made any serious missteps. I would say most members are fine with serious missteps. I think the issue for most members is serious sins.
I am fine with prophets having serious sins, but that is a line many people just can’t cross.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.