How did you find out about JS’ polygamy?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Ray wrote – 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.

I think that is where we have painted ourselves in a corner. And not just on polygamy.

Where ever this idea of infallible humans came from it has cost us, as a church, and religions in general, horribly. I don’t even know where to trace it back to.

Yes we could trace it’s specifics or perceived specifics in Mormondom, but we aren’t alone. Religions have and are doing it in one form or another. Ann mentioned Grace and our lack of it in discourse. I agree with the perception. However, I have known plenty of “Grace” religiously driven people who teach, proselytize, and espouse Grace. Yet they dole it out randomly or judgmentally. What, who, and how they distribute “Grace” unto their fellow beings (including congregants) is no more healthier than our works over grace issue.

And it is on this struggle that atheism wins. Our own religious codes “hoisted (us) on (our) own petard.”

Polygamy or not.

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

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.

I know what my line is. I’m curious about other’s. If this is a thread jack let me know and I’ll make it a topic of it’s own.

[Anonymous]

GBSmith:

I think the topic is worthy of its own thread.

A very interesting question. Would be great to discuss.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I think it’s a bridge that many church leaders are too afraid to cross.

But what if the church’s future is on the other side of it?

Right now it seems that we’re making Joseph Smith’s personal conduct the star of the show. Either way – it was above reproach or it was beyond the pale – that’s a problem. Because it was both, and the longer we spend acting like it wasn’t, the longer we thrash and tire and lose focus.

I really think we have it backwards. We seem to say, Develop full faith and trust in Joseph, fragile though it will be when based on the current image, because that’s what Mormons do as they come unto Christ. Speaking just for myself: Not me, not anymore. The attention given to JS, the precious resources spent preserving an untenable story about him – it doesn’t feel right.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

nibbler wrote:

I think it’s a bridge that many church leaders are too afraid to cross.

But what if the church’s future is on the other side of it?

Right now it seems that we’re making Joseph Smith’s personal conduct the star of the show. Either way – it was above reproach or it was beyond the pale – that’s a problem. Because it was both, and the longer we spend acting like it wasn’t, the longer we thrash and tire and lose focus.

I really think we have it backwards. We seem to say, Develop full faith and trust in Joseph, fragile though it will be when based on the current image, because that’s what Mormons do as they come unto Christ. Speaking just for myself: Not me, not anymore. The attention given to JS, the precious resources spent preserving an untenable story about him – it doesn’t feel right.

Like

[Anonymous]

I think many members had given up hope that we’d ever cross the priesthood ban bridge. There were probably some leaders that didn’t want to cross it. We crossed it.

That’s not the best analogy, people outside the church care about equal rights, the church had to cross that bridge to stay relevant in the world. Very few people outside the church care about JS’s image but the world isn’t as interested in hiding the man behind the legend. If there is to be a crossing it might be at a much slower pace.

This is off subject but some critics of the church claim that we aren’t Christian. Understandably that gets pushback from members but I think both camps are right. We are Christian and we’re not, it depends on perspectives and what aspect of Mormonism is under the microscope. The church often focuses on proving it is the one true church through a retelling of the restoration narrative. We want to distinguish ourselves from other Christian churches so we list towards over-focusing on JS.

Ann wrote:

But what if the church’s future is on the other side of it?

For me this is one of those time will tells. I’ve crossed the bridge but I don’t worry too much about whether someone else has or hasn’t. All roads are still connected.

[Anonymous]

This discussion reminds me of

Armand Mauss’ book “The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation”. He describes the tension between being different vs. the same. And this tension/struggle is in many different topics – Are we Christian? Are we “of the world”? There is a spectrum within the church on most all these issues.

I am sure there are still some really racists people in the church – such as <10 years ago a black couple in my ward was told by a temple worker, "You shouldn't be here." There are also mixed-race marriages in our church.

The same with attitudes towards gays in the church today.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

Just wondering, how and when did you find out about JS’ polygamy?

I grew up in the church, and did not know for sure that Joseph Smith had been married to multiple women until the Gospel Topics essay came out. … stuff deleted …

My husband insists that I am wrong, that ‘everyone knows’ that JS was married to many women, that I am ‘bitter’ and ‘childish’ for ever having believed otherwise. When pressed, my husband says that he was first introduced to the idea of JS polygamy by a Sunday School teacher … stuff deleted …

So that’s problem #2 I have with it: that the knowledge seems to be a privilege reserved only for certain members. … stuff deleted …

What do you think? Am I bitter and childish? How did you first find out about JS polygamy – from a correlated source or not? What did you think when you first heard about it?

First – Joni. I am sorry if removing some of what you said is bothersome. Just copying the whole thing probably means nobody will read it. It isn’t “…unimportant stuff deleted …”

But this reminded me of something I was re-reading the other day http://rationalfaiths.com/the-mormon-history-conspiracy/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://rationalfaiths.com/the-mormon-history-conspiracy/ where the blogger said,

Quote:

Not long ago, members who violated the counsel to avoid anti-Mormon literature, and were disturbed by what they learned, were blamed for reading too much. Now that the Church has admitted the truth of many anti-Mormon claims, members who are troubled are blamed for not reading enough.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

First – Joni. I am sorry if removing some of what you said is bothersome. Just copying the whole thing probably means nobody will read it. It isn’t “…unimportant stuff deleted …”

in the past I have used [snip] to indicate that I am copying and pasting selected parts of a quoted message. I co-opted that idea from what I saw Brian Johnson do.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

But this reminded me of something I was re-reading the other day http://rationalfaiths.com/the-mormon-history-conspiracy/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://rationalfaiths.com/the-mormon-history-conspiracy/ where the blogger said,

Quote:

Not long ago, members who violated the counsel to avoid anti-Mormon literature, and were disturbed by what they learned, were blamed for reading too much. Now that the Church has admitted the truth of many anti-Mormon claims, members who are troubled are blamed for not reading enough.

But if I read enough for me, am I allowed my opinion?

I’m remembering a cartoon with the man dining out on all-you-can-eat night. The waiter is cooly refusing refusing to bring the check, “I’m sorry sir, but I’m afraid you haven’t had ALL you can eat.”

Mormon polygamy was not a 24/7 horror show. But the church needs to allow people who have seen enough to conclude for themselves that it didn’t come from the God they know.

[Author]

Posts