- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have been trying to make sense of the essays on polygamy, and it led me to some writings about Joseph Smith. It states that he never practiced polygamy, and in fact the accusation is made that JS didn’t write section 132 of the D&C, that someone else did. The information is compelling, but I hesitate to take at face value writings from the RLDS church, although they have many references back to accepted church publications. What are your thoughts on whether JS practiced polygamy and yet spoke out against it publicly? And do you think it is possible JS never wrote that section since it was years later before it was released? I would almost feel better if he had not written it and never practiced polygamy because my sharp disappointment in that behavior would be ameliorated. But, that opens a whole new can of worms if that section was presented as coming from JS when in fact it hadn’t. Oh what a tangled web. Isn’t there access to enough information on the part of the church leadership that we can get some answers to these questions and understand this a little more clearly. Supposedly there is a section on the DC that was left out when section 132 was introduced because they were in conflict. This is so confusing. I miss my blissful days of blind “testimony”. It was easier not to wonder these things.
Quote:I miss my blissful days of blind “testimony”. It was easier not to wonder these things.
Very often I am right there with you.
Good questions. I do think the church historians (and some GAs) have more information than what they have shared in the essays. However, they do have a point of view to substantiate. It is also possible given the evidence they have that they also have some questions and have presented what they are pretty sure is accurate – that’s just good PR. My own opinion is that Joseph did practice polygamy, but I don’t buy the whole sword and the angel thing and I don’t buy section 132 being inspired or revelation or whatever (FWIW I don’t believe much of the D&C). I don’t know why Joseph denied practicing polygamy. On the other hand, I don’t see how the church can save face on the issue – if they admit polygamy was wrong, it brings into question all of the church’s truth claims. And how do they “uncanonize” something? This is the same issue with the BoA, I think.
Eternity4me wrote:I have been trying to make sense of the essays on polygamy, and it led me to some writings about Joseph Smith. It states that he never practiced polygamy, and in fact the accusation is made that JS didn’t write section 132 of the D&C, that someone else did. The information is compelling, but I hesitate to take at face value writings from the RLDS church, although they have many references back to accepted church publications. What are your thoughts on whether JS practiced polygamy and yet spoke out against it publicly? And do you think it is possible JS never wrote that section since it was years later before it was released?
The wealth of evidence in support of JS practicing polygamy is pretty hard to argue against. It comes from ardent supporters that remained loyal to the church throughout their life and from vocal opponents of polygamy and people that were kicked out of the church.
The RLDS church (Now Community of Christ) was founded by former members of the LDS church that hadn’t gone west with the brighamite faction. Many of these individuals were very much against polygamy. They convinced the Son of JS to be their Prophet. He (JS the third) was undoubtedly influenced by his mother’s (Emma’s) claims that JS never practiced it. So this became one of the tenets of their religion for many years. JS the third actually traveled to Utah and interviewed many of the women that supposedly had been plural wives to JS. What he found seemed to give him doubts about his position and he went back to his mother with additional questions but she held firm in her denial of the charges.
The Community of Christ (Formerly RLDS) is now much less focused on truth claims tied to Joseph Smith and is much more focused on being good and inclusive people. They have downgraded the BoM to a good or inspired book, they present the JST as an inspired commentary on the bible passages, and they have acknowledged the involvement of JS in polygamy.
CoC does not accept Section 132 as scripture, although their D&C has continued to grow, including sections the Brighamites (LDS) do not have. WVS did a very interesting series on D&C 132 on By Common Consent. This page links them all: http://bycommonconsent.com/?s=132 I think he married / was sealed to multiple women, that he denied it because it was an explosive issue and Emma hated it, and that he didn’t write Section 132. I am quite certain about the first two things and lean toward the third without being certain about it.
I definitely believe that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy, and that he came up with Section 132 to strong-arm Emma into going along with it. That’s just my perspective. Regardless of what I believe, though, you might be interested in a book, Sacred Loneliness. It’s about all of Joseph Smith’s wives; their history, their relationship with JS, and what happened to them after Joseph’s death. I really enjoyed this book, because it doesn’t focus on Joseph Smith’s life, and doesn’t attempt to paint anybody in a negative (or peachy positive) light. It just sticks to the history from diaries and historical documents. Holy Cow – funny thing, when pressed for details about Joseph Smith’s polygamy, the church deferred to Todd Compton who wrote In Sacred Loneliness! Hawk, that is one of the reasons I am optimistic about where we are right now and where we are headed. That flat-out would have been unthinkable in my early adulthood. The community of Christ seems to be more inspired than the LDS church does with its claims and inclusiveness and orientation toward the book of Mormon. Aren’t they saying what many of us end up believing it hopefully for? Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
SilentDawning wrote:The community of Christ seems to be more inspired than the LDS church does with its claims and inclusiveness and orientation toward the book of Mormon. Aren’t they saying what many of us end up believing it hopefully ng for?
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
I agree that the CoC has been much more inclusive and open about history lately. They “gave” women the priesthood some time ago. OTOH, the COC has not seemed to grow much since then. I figure that the LDS model fits the needs of many individuals and I respect them getting their needs met. Unfortunately, this is not a true marketplace where I can just go across the street to another church that might better meet my needs. Thus I propose that “big tent Mormonism” should continue with the LDS model while making allowances for as many different LDS approaches as possible.
Ray wrote Quote:. and that he (Joseph) didn’t write Section 132
Ray/others, can you elaborate here more about what you surmise could of been the true orgins? Was this a fabrication by William Clayton from whole cloth? His story/testimony (forty plus years after Joseph and Hyrum death) many feel makes no sense as Emma loved Hyrum which was totally out of character of how she treated anyone pushing this “doctrine”. If Hyrum truely went to the house and introduced Sec 132 to Emma (which part of the reading would be dictating her own destruction if she didn’t accept)…. why would Hyrum also not have been in the dog house with her so to speak? Any and additional thoughts please.
I think Joseph and Hyrum collaborated on the wording and presentation of the revelation to validate polygamy – and I’m not saying it was fake, necessarily, in saying it that way. There really is no way to know for sure one way or the other. I can accept that Joseph asked Hyrum to be the one who presented it to Emma, given how much she liked and respected him and how sensitive and upsetting it was for her. I just don’t think Section 132 is a copy of what they wrote originally – but I can’t make any claim to knowledge about it. It’s just my own view right now, given what I’ve studied, and subject to change at any point and in pretty much any way.
When Emma burned it, it should have stayed burnt. hawkgrrrl wrote:When Emma burned it, it should have stayed burnt.
Like.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.