Polygamy

[Marduk]

Or Jesus instructing his disciples to "tell no man" that he was the Christ. As a matter of fact, I think that there are many parallels between this and Joseph's secrecy in his polygamous relationships; this knowledge, in the wrong hands, could easily have destroyed the fledgling church before it was ready to stand.

I'd just like to put this discussion into some perspective; people, anywhere, and everywhere, are unhappy when someone attempts to humanize someone they intensely respect. I'm reminded of the historian that wrote about possible economic motives that the founding fathers may have had. Suffice it to say, he was lambasted and almost run out of his profession. Not everyone can understand human complexity. Many of us want to see people as good, or bad, and that there is nothing in between.

[Marduk]

And FPM, if you really do look at everything on the internet about this church, the vast majority of it that isn't put out by the church is quite accurately described as fecal matter. I've seen more scholarly work from 6 year olds. And quite frankly, that is a source of great frustration in the matter; it is nearly impossible to find someone who doesn't whitewash the truth OR have an axe to grind against the church.

[TheBlackSheep]

Something that has almost nothing to do with anything:

Friendly Post-Mo, I find it interesting that people like you and me feel the need to put qualifiers like "Friendly" into our not-so-religious 'nyms. Also that we need secondary 'nyms. It's just interesting.

Anyway, continue.

[Friendly Post-Mo]

Marduk, you underestimate me. Most of my research is in actual records and I've gathered the majority of my info from LDS church history scholars. Sure, the internet has some inaccuracies but that does not detract from the fact that early church history is consistently swept under the rug.

But, I do have to say that when I read the sentence, "I've seen more scholarly work from 6-year olds," I thought immediately of the Book of Abraham. Zing!

Also, Smeed, it's arrogant that...I don't agree with you? What? I'm not saying I have answers, I'm just saying, neither do you. But this thread wasn't supposed to be about reasons for leaving the church; I was hoping to have an honest discussion on church history. This is what always happens! One attempts to confront Joseph Smith's adultery, fraud, and mistakes and no TBM is willing to acknowledge it even to justify it. The response "well you don't need to know" is utterly asinine! If Joseph Smith was a fraud, the church has no foundation.

Black Sheep, it's an homage to you!

[Marduk]

Marduk, you underestimate me. Most of my research is in actual records and I've gathered the majority of my info from LDS church history scholars. Sure, the internet has some inaccuracies but that does not detract from the fact that early church history is consistently swept under the rug.

But, I do have to say that when I read the sentence, "I've seen more scholarly work from 6-year olds," I thought immediately of the Book of Abraham. Zing!

Also, Smeed, it's arrogant that...I don't agree with you? What? I'm not saying I have answers, I'm just saying, neither do you. But this thread wasn't supposed to be about reasons for leaving the church; I was hoping to have an honest discussion on church history. This is what always happens! One attempts to confront Joseph Smith's adultery, fraud, and mistakes and no TBM is willing to acknowledge it even to justify it. The response "well you don't need to know" is utterly asinine! If Joseph Smith was a fraud, the church has no foundation.

Black Sheep, it's an homage to you!

I said nothing about you. What I said was the internet is full of inanities and looking online for informative and historically accurate accounts is really a needle in a haystack search. I also find it very ironic that you say in one sentence that your info comes from "LDS church history scholars" and in the next complain that church history is "swept under the rug." Which is it? If you're looking for a general conference report that announces all of Joseph Smith's sexual experiences with various women, you're not going to find it. And that's because that sort of thing simply has no place in that setting. If you want to know about the countless affairs of Thomas Jefferson with his black mistresses, I wouldn't look for it in a state of the union address. I'd look for historical accounts and records; journals, letters, etc. I'd do the same thing for church history.

"One attempts to confront Joseph Smith's adultery, fraud, and mistakes..." "I was hoping to have an honest discussion..." These two statements are directly at odds. To compare it to something not religiously charged, let's say I ask you what your father is like, and want you to give me a candid opinion based on what you know and your interactions with him. As you start to tell me, I tell you, "this is what always happens! I was trying to show you your father is a miserable and lecherous wretch who had more interest in money than integrity!"

In short, I'm more than happy to have a frank and honest discussion about the historical record with you. Coming in with a clear cut and antagonistic agenda makes that all but impossible.

[Friendly Post-Mo]

Okay, so you don't like my semantics, I know they are blunt. Here is what I would like to know.

Joseph Smith slept with married men's wives. Historical fact. I call this adultery. What do TBM's say?

Joseph Smith was arrested for fraud. This isn't even my word...that was his charge.

Mistakes...well, most people would agree he's not perfect.

All I'm wondering is is it possible to come to terms with all of these things and still be TBM?

[Friendly Post-Mo]

As far as the Thomas Jefferson parallel, he did not start a church were having a mistress was a sin so grave it would be called, "the most serious sin after murder and denying the holy spirit."

[Marduk]

Joseph Smith slept with married men's wives. Yes, this is very likely. They were women who were also sealed to him. You may not believe in polygamy, or perhaps don't believe that it should have been done in secret. However, if it were done in public, it would have caused intense legal scrutiny, and likely meant the destruction of the infant church.

Joseph Smith was arrested for fraud. Yes, this is correct. Many saints were also charged with not paying taxes and then forced out of their homes. These homes were then occupied or sold by the men who made these claims and forced them out, at personal profit. The legal system of the 1800's leaves much to be desired.

As to your question, I'm still not sure I understand what you're defining as a TBM.

And I only pointed to Thomas Jefferson as an example of a historical figure who had much written about him, positive and negative. It wasn't "TJ did it, so it was ok for Joseph!" It was "when there is a deluge of information about any given individual, some facets of their lives will be more in the forefront, and some more in the background."

[Friendly Post-Mo]

Okay, I'll admit, I think it's turning into a heated debate partially because of me. I obviously don't believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet but I'll refrain from offering my other opinions about the man.

I'm trying very very hard not to harbor bitterness against the Church but sometimes the inconsistencies are so blatant, it sends me into a diatribe. I know a lot of very smart people who are TBM whom I respect a great deal. Most readers of the Board are similarly intelligent. How do intelligent members of the Church maintain their testimonies against such damning evidence that their founder might not be the man the Church currently makes him out to be?

Also, do most TBM readers feel that the early church scandals (adultery, fraud, taxes, Book of Abraham, etc.) were done for a greater good? If so, why do you think it had to be done that way?

[Marduk]

Again, you're asking us to share your conclusions. You need to back up quite a bit. The question you're asking is "We all know Joseph Smith was a fraud, an adulterer, and a liar. Were all of his lies for the greater good?" A better question (albeit, still one that needs to draw less conclusions) would be "This is what I've found in my research. Does this make Joseph Smith a fraud? Or an adulterer? Or a liar?"

The "inconsistencies" you describe as being "blatant" are only blatant because of the conclusions you've already drawn. Given an alternate explanation for those, other than the one you've decided to adopt, (conclusions which are far more easy for the skeptic in me to accept) then not only is the story consistent, it is more intellectually satisfying.

[Craig Jessop]

And quite frankly, that is a source of great frustration in the matter; it is nearly impossible to find someone who doesn't whitewash the truth OR have an axe to grind against the church.

Not even close to true. If you'd like a reading list I'd be more than happy to supply one. Remember how I'm a history major with an emphasis in Mormon Studies? I kinda know what I'm talking about.

Joseph Smith slept with married men's wives. Historical fact. I call this adultery. What do TBM's say?

I'd be interested to see a primary source for this, because in my reading on polygamy I've found no evidence presented from a serious scholar to that effect.

Joseph Smith was arrested for fraud. This isn't even my word...that was his charge.

And acquitted, even by hostile courts. As for the 1826 trial, its veracity is questioned by serious scholars of Mormonism (both members of the Church and not) -- you'll be hard pressed to find a mention of it by Bushman or Shipps.

As for reconciling what I believe about the prophet to what the Church teaches... I've found that the Church in recent years has been very open about its history to those with the capacity to understand. It's a matter of balancing the real story with the hagiography; most members of the Church, even educated ones, simply don't have the academic training to deal with the facts. Sure the new Joseph Smith movie was pretty whitewashed, but it was remarkably accurate in its portrayal of events. The problem I see with the Church's interpretation of history is that it seeks to impose modern standards on old and dead people; they want to see a lovable prophet who wipes the mud of of kids' feet and sends them on their way to school, but not the same prophet taunting and wrestling in the mud with river rats. I don't think the Church hides the arrogant, tool-ish Joseph anymore (they totally used to), but they don't show him to the world because it doesn't do anything to build the kingdom; they leave that to scholars who have a vested interest. Elder Ballard said:

n ordinary conversations, don't waste time trying to justify the practice of polygamy during the Old Testament times or speculating as to why it was practiced for a time in the 19th century. Those may be legitimate topics for historians and scholars, but I think we simply reinforce the stereotypes when we make it a primary topic of conversations about the Church.

I think that is so true.

[Marduk]

Ok Craig, let me amend my statement. It is hard to find it in a concise and non-scholarly way.

[wired]

n ordinary conversations, don't waste time trying to justify the practice of polygamy during the Old Testament times or speculating as to why it was practiced for a time in the 19th century. Those may be legitimate topics for historians and scholars, but I think we simply reinforce the stereotypes when we make it a primary topic of conversations about the Church.

I think that is so true.

Can I have a source on that? Not because I don't believe you, but because I agree with it and want to be able to source it if necessary.

[Craig Jessop]

Ok Craig, let me amend my statement. It is hard to find it in a concise and non-scholarly way.

Agreed. There is very little out there for people who aren't scholars. It also drives me crazy when people who think they know what they're talking about go in fists swinging to defend the Prophet and the Restoration without actually knowing what happened. Which is why Elder Ballard's statement rocks: acknowledge it, move on.

@wired:http://newsroom.lds.org/article/elder-m ... -defensive

[mic0]

Craig, what are some of the scholarly reputable resources you are talking about? If I ever have time to read for fun again I might actually look them up.

[Rifka]

Or Jesus instructing his disciples to "tell no man" that he was the Christ. As a matter of fact, I think that there are many parallels between this and Joseph's secrecy in his polygamous relationships; this knowledge, in the wrong hands, could easily have destroyed the fledgling church before it was ready to stand.

I'd just like to put this discussion into some perspective; people, anywhere, and everywhere, are unhappy when someone attempts to humanize someone they intensely respect. I'm reminded of the historian that wrote about possible economic motives that the founding fathers may have had. Suffice it to say, he was lambasted and almost run out of his profession. Not everyone can understand human complexity. Many of us want to see people as good, or bad, and that there is nothing in between.

I know this isn't the main thread, but I just had to point out that this example bothered me, Marduk. Jesus told his disciples not to tell people he was the Christ. That doesn't necessarily mean he told them to lie about it. There's a big difference between not telling someone the full truth and outright lying to them. It's not super clear from the wording in that passage, but I have a hard time believing that Jesus would tell his disciples to lie outright.

[Marduk]

Yes, Rifka, that's true. I also believe that Joseph was instructed not to tell anyone that he was practicing polygamy. What do you think happens when either party is asked directly about their actions or beliefs? I won't bring up Peter denying Christ, as some people don't believe that was a commandment. But even in this example, when directly confronted, one either disobeys the commandment or lies. There really is no alternative.

[Dragon Lady]

Yes, Rifka, that's true. I also believe that Joseph was instructed not to tell anyone that he was practicing polygamy. What do you think happens when either party is asked directly about their actions or beliefs? I won't bring up Peter denying Christ, as some people don't believe that was a commandment. But even in this example, when directly confronted, one either disobeys the commandment or lies. There really is no alternative.

Not necessarily. Christ was asked several times if he was the Christ and he didn't want to answer, so he didn't. He either avoided the question (like when he said he'd answer if the Pharisees would answer his question about John the Baptist) or simply didn't answer (Pilate). But in general, I think you are right.

[Gimgimno]

Alright, this is my first time back here in a few months, and even though I would really rather not participate at all in this discussion, let me just give a few cents worth of context behind my answer.

First off, this question went grossly overhours. I'd intended to write something up for about a month but never really had time. I'd been flagged over a dozen times by editors and writers telling me to get a move on. I found myself with some time and some motivation on Saturday and went for it. I spit out that answer at roughly the speed of thought; I didn't really take major pauses at any point in the construction of that answer and I type over 110 words per minute. I checked a few sources to make sure that I wasn't spouting inaccuracies, but as I said, I've probably taken just as much or close to as much coursework on this sort of thing as Craig has, and I went through a questioning youth period just like most people did, only I dove straight into everything the internet would give me. I have read just about every antagonistic claim in some shape or form that you can find out there. Based on what events that people are discussing here, I feel like I could say with a high degree of certainty that I know the major sites that they likely get their information from. Like Craig, I must defend my level of knowledge: I know what I'm talking about.

People have brought up polyandrous marriages, a topic that I know a lot about that I did not want to bring up in my answer. It was a whole can of worms that didn't need to be opened based on what the question was actually asking. My answer was already long and unwieldy; I'm in the camp that favors less rather than more if that's at all possible, and that would have doubled the length of my already-too-long-for-my-taste answer. I felt like I answered the question, and my suggestions for more information were reasonable. I think that Craig underestimates the Religion department faculty if he thinks that they would only give canned responses; every time that I've spoken to a member of their faculty seeking information, they have provided very fair resources that certainly neither paint the kettle black nor white. Just because they're paid by BYU doesn't mean that they have hidden doubts that they shroud in secrecy and never share with anyone. If that was the case, I suspect that they would have left BYU to teach theology at some other university.

Do I believe in the Church? You can bet your hind end on it. Like wired, I don't subscribe to the bloggosphere abbreviations that I personally find completely mindless, but know that I'm not a blind, fooled-by-the-Church, never-read-a-bad-word-about-the-Church-in-his-life kid that doesn't know squat. I've read thousands of pages about all of this stuff, I can pretty well decide what I consider anti-Mormon literature and what I don't without your assertions that my opinions on the matter are misinformed. My indicator is the intent behind the information; if it's presented with the clear intent to uproot belief and replace it with concern and doubt, I consider that manipulative and anti-Mormon. If the intent is to inform and generate thought, I consider that productive and I encourage people to seek it out. I recommended FAIR because in my opinion, if they lean too far one way they lean towards the Church, and for someone who doesn't need to read manipulative literature given their state, that seemed like a better option to me than other sites that lean both ways. Ultimately, I'm still happy with my answer.

Really, I hate that we get defensive whenever we respond to discussions like this, but I feel like we are often assumed to be less-informed and brainwashed just because we have to answer conservatively given the medium. Maybe I didn't need to swoop in here to defend my honor in the first place--I don't know. In any case, I know that this can be a bit of a sensitive topic for some people, but I feel like it's water under the bridge. Researchers can try their hardest to ascertain facts, but the bottom line is that we'll never know the complete circumstances of any of these situations so there's no sense in dwelling on them. Some people think that's short-sighted and unwise; I think it's reasonable.

And with that, I will wiggle my way back into the shadows until the next time another writer emails me to tell me about the happenings over here. Hopefully I'll be more genial next time.

[Dragon Lady]

I'm gonna agree with Gimmy here. I majored in ANES with a focus on Biblical Hebrew. If there is any book of scripture that science works hard to disprove, it's the Bible. I was placed in circumstances countless times, by religion professors (who were also ANES professors) where I would seriously have to examine my testimony because the things I was taught in class at BYU basically disproved what I was taught in church. But they were things that anyone in ANES would need to be very familiar with all of that in grad school. Just because my professors have testimonies in the Bible doesn't mean they don't know and aren't willing to teach and discuss all of the points that are touchy and messy and the world believes to be false. Heck, I wrote an exegesis on Genesis 38 (Judah and Tamar). If that isn't a touchy subject that most LDS folk gloss over, I don't know what is.