New Essay on Polygamy! (update, a 2nd one posted also)

[Anonymous]

The church has a lot of embarrassing stuff to deal with. Its amusing to me that at one time plural marriage was hard core doctrine. Now, in the essays it is something about which we don’t know a lot. The comment that God told us to plural marriage but not how to practice it seems like the ‘blame it on frail humanity’ argument that gets used conveniently to explain questionable prophet behavior. I also think its a brilliant piece of likely fiction that JS had the angel and sword expedience. Its as if he knew his sex with teenagers was wrong and said ‘I never wanted this plural partner thing…it was forced on me!!’

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

From the second essay :

Quote:

In this legal setting, President Smith sought to protect the Church while stating the truth. His testimony conveyed a distinction Church leaders had long understood: the Manifesto removed the divine command for the Church collectively to sustain and defend plural marriage; it had not, up to this time, prohibited individuals from continuing to practice or perform plural marriage as a matter of religious conscience.

?

From the first essay regarding the denials –

Quote:

The statements emphasized that the Church practiced no marital law other than monogamy while implicitly leaving open the possibility that individuals, under direction of God’s living prophet, might do so.

This is difficult. It appears to excuse having two different rules systems. One set of rules for general membership that prohibits polygamy and another set of rules for individuals that either through “religious conscience” of “direction of God’s living prophet” become exceptions to the rule.

We do not want to call it dishonest but is it? If it was ok for the church then to obfuscate the truth by twisting the meaning of words or adding a wink and a nod – what would make it unacceptable today?

Would this fall under the general recent blanket admissions that “God has always had to work through imperfect individuals” and “there have been some actions of church leaders that are not in agreement with our standards.” ?

[Anonymous]

SD,

I’d probably say “puzzling” more than “embarrassing” history.

Certainly the overall story is strange to go from “I didn’t want to but God told me I had to” (which not just JS, but most others seemed to be stating in their journals), to the Manifesto saying God is prohibiting. Such a paradox indeed.

However, when you look at the details and progression of events over the timeline of 80+ years (a long timeline)…I can see the sensible approach and reject the critics who rashly paint the picture it was sex driven or just plan lunacy. I also reject the idea it is the heavenly order of things. I just don’t believe either extreme.

The interesting part of the story was the spiritual experiences were not just Joseph Smith and not isolated to one teenage person. The revelatory process was repeated by Joseph with other women of various ages, and then was repeated by others, not just one man, but by other men and the women who struggled to accept it and received their confirmations to live it. While you can’t use the scientific process to evaluate spiritual things…there is an element to me confirming it wasn’t about Joseph and teenage girls.

Then to see the church members fight so hard to live it and then be asked to abandon the practice, is interesting to me God would do such a thing.

To me, there is so much of the story that is about how revelation works, apart from polygamy itself, and even less about sex or control.

All churches have a past to deal with. All governments, and companies, and of course…all individuals do too. The church is no exception, and the essay stresses how difficult it is to understand. I don’t think I ever will understand it. It’s puzzling to me.

Better the church own up to it and call it what it is, then try to be apologetic about it and think they can explain it.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

We do not want to call it dishonest but is it? If it was ok for the church then to obfuscate the truth by twisting the meaning of words or adding a wink and a nod – what would make it unacceptable today?

No, Roy…I don’t think it’s acceptable. It seems dishonest and non-compliant. The only reason the church is openly presenting it now on the website is there is no legal action that could be taken now about it. If there was a legal repercussion of the government confiscating church property today by admitting these discretions of the past, they wouldn’t publish it.

It seems it is more Machiavellian “the end justify the means” thinking.

That’s problematic to me. I don’t think it is acceptable by anyone.

Maybe its not honest or acceptable. But is it honorable?

[Anonymous]

It’s good that they are starting to address the issue. A week ago I couldn’t really tell you what the position of the church was on Joseph Smith having multiple wives. There really wasn’t a clear, official stance that I knew of. There are even books that suggest that he never practiced polygamy. So one small step for church…

I can also see how they would sweat the release of these and the other articles. I appreciate that they have to be worded carefully due to the sensitive nature of the subject and in consideration of members that may have built up faith around something that may not necessarily have been true. I also understand how those same careful words can be a trigger for other people that feel like the careful wording is another dodge. It’ll be cool to see how this all pans out over time.

NewLight wrote:

As I recall, the angel with the drawn sword was to get Zina (already married to Henry) to marry Joseph. That seems like complete manipulation to me and is uncharacteristic of the God who I personally have come to know.

The interesting thing here… the angel with a sword thing might be a bit more plausible with the first plural wife, it becomes less and less plausible with subsequent plural wives. The first plural wife? Sure, that’s a hard line to cross and maybe there needs to be a little motivation to cross it. Assuming Zina was the fourth plural wife, why would Joseph need that extra motivation to cross some line he had already crossed multiple times before? To say nothing of god’s gift of agency (both JS and the women). It’s easier to simply reject the notion that an angel actually threatened JS with a sword.

Edit:

You know how many wives you have to have to restore the principle of plural wives? Two. At least that’s all you’d have to have to comply with a principle that god is all but forcing on you… but I appear to be a minimalist.

This is reminding me of a scene from Office Space:

I need to talk about your wives.

Really? I have a wife. I, uh,

Well, ok, one is minimum, ok?

Ok.

Now, it’s up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Solomon, for example, has 700 wives. And a terrific smile.

Ok. Ok, you want me to marry more?

Look. Joseph.

Yeah.

People can get religion anywhere, ok? They come to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the atmosphere and the attitude. That’s what the wives are about. It’s about fun.

Ok. So, more then?

Look, we want you to express yourself, ok? If you think the bare minimum is enough, then ok. But some people choose to have more and we encourage that, ok? You do want to express yourself, don’t you?

Yeah. Yeah.

Great. Great. That’s all I ask.

Ok.

— 100 years later —

You know what, God, if you want me to marry 700 women, like your pretty boy over there, Solomon, why don’t you just make the minimum 700 wives?

Well, I thought I remembered you saying that you wanted to express yourself.

Yeah. You know what, yeah, I do. I do want to express myself, okay. And I don’t need 700 wives to do it.

That was a joke, hope it landed. I don’t mean to be insensitive on a controversial issue or equate women with pieces of flair. Back to your regularly scheduled program:

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Its amusing to me that at one time plural marriage was hard core doctrine. Now, in the essays it is something about which we don’t know a lot.

Because of this on this and the change that has happened with other teachings, I like to focus on the basics of the gospel. The two great commandments, the doctrine of Christ and pure Mormonism as Ray puts it.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The interesting thing here… the angel with a sword thing might be a bit more plausible with the first plural wife, it becomes less and less plausible with subsequent plural wives. -nibbler

Maybe after the bad results of the first experience with polygamy, Joseph didn’t want to do it again. Perhaps the Lord needed us to practice it as part of his plan.

The explanation ‘increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord].” ‘ works well enough for me. I certainly am the beneficiary of that practice. I have several ancestors that practiced polygamy.

We all see darkly on this topic.

[Anonymous]

Fwiw, there have been multiple, very clear statements for a long time that Joseph married multiple wives. For example, it’s been in the Seminary and Institute manuals for decades.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the fact that Joseph Smith was a polygamist was not news to me as it seems to have been for some. I was surprised to find he was also polyandrous when the other polygamy essay came out, and I was also surprised then that some of the “women” were very young – but any fan of the Beverly Hillbillies knows Ellie Mae was destined to be a spinster at 18 because she was so old.

I will be one of the first to say that the church has in the past attempted to hide some of its history. I will also say that JS being a polygamist was not something it hid. The details, on the other hand…. (And I do think this essay does a good job at explaining why there are few details – I find the explanation very plausible.) And FWIW, I don’t buy the angel and sword thing, but I don’t buy lots of other things JS said and did, either.

[Anonymous]

The fact that Joseph Smith was a polygamist is going to be news to lots of members. If I mentioned some things in these essays a week ago there’d be a contingent of members wanting to challenge the information. There are people that would deny that he practiced polygamy altogether, others that would insist that all the marriages took place posthumously, yet others that would claim that all the marriages were only sealings to ensure a place in heaven, etc. Heck, I don’t even expect that to change in the near future. People are going to know what they know.

Perhaps I’m in a unique corner of zion? I was just recently told that I couldn’t show the people in my temple prep class the recent video about temple clothing. :crazy: :crazy:

[Anonymous]

richalger wrote:

The explanation ‘increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord].” ‘ works well enough for me.

I’ve heard that more men crossed the plains than women. Of course the ages of the men are an important detail that’s missing when I hear that statistic, makes a difference. Plus that’s more to do with Utah polygamy. I believe that their point is that there were plenty of men to go around in order to raise seed. Besides:

Quote:

God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham

:angel:

richalger wrote:

We all see darkly on this topic.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I was just recently told that I couldn’t show the people in my temple prep class the recent video about temple clothing. :crazy: :crazy:

Sometimes, all you can do is sigh. That just is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Well you can still tell the class about the video and enough information where they can find out about it.

Or bear your testimony about how wonderful it is that the brethren have made it easier for us to talk with others about this topic by showing us how and how far we can go in talking about this.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

The fact that Joseph Smith was a polygamist is going to be news to lots of members.

That has been my experience so far, nibbler. I was a member all my life, and didn’t know it until late in life when starting to study church history on my own. And I’ve mentioned it to a few family or friends in a non-threatening way and have always had the response to me “I didn’t know about Joseph. I certainly knew Brigham Young lived it.” That has just been my experience. I think many members are not aware because it is not taught on Sunday.

…by the way…your joke landed very nicely :thumbup: …nice “flare” in that post!

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

…by the way…your joke landed very nicely :thumbup: …nice “flare” in that post!

I was cracking up. You and Mr. Deity should get together and work out a sketch 🙂 .

I was always aware of Polygamy growing up, but Polyandry was a new one (I came across Polyandry on FAIR when I was researching Polygamy. Double edged sword I guess….).

If those essays had come out five years ago, I might not have ever gotten on FAIR. I would have read them and thought, that is a pretty good explanation. There are some things in here I didn’t know, but this is THE CHURCH distributing this so it must be all accurate and tidy. Unfortunately, being in the place I am now, I appreciate what the Church has done and I think they did a good job, but knowing more about the history and having read a lot more about it, they chose to highlight some things but not others. There are still some gaps.

For me, IMHO, the over arching problem (and I think this post on BCC has some good insights on this http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/10/22/institutional-change-pulling-the-rug-from-under-the-most-committed/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/10/22/institutional-change-pulling-the-rug-from-under-the-most-committed/) is that all my life I have been told that the Prophet and the Q15 are led directly by Christ. Whatever they say is direct revelation. But the essays keep making the point that although they do receive revelation, it is not very clear, and they have to discern what it means, and sometimes they make mistakes. So members have given time, money, resources, their lives to living commandments that then are changed or adapted and their sacrifices, in some instances, have been for naught.

I guess what I am trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that the essays don’t really help me because my faith in the institution has been undermined and I don’t know how to get it back (and I don’t think I ever will). And that is a really hard paradigm to work in sometimes…

[Author]

Posts