I can't blame anyone for my ignorance, but polygamy is a taboo topic in LDS Church meetings. If we talk about polygamy, say in Sunday School, it is glossed over, typically ending with the conclusion stated above - economic reasons. I really don't feel like I missed some huge lesson in seminary about the ins and outs of polygamy (LDS seminary = early morning bible study during high school). I went to Sunday School. And what seminary teacher is taught and given materials to approach the topic of LDS early practice of polygamy in detail? None to my knowledge.
I was lucky to serve my mission in Chile. I say I was lucky because I think more people in the States are aware of early Mormon polygamy practices than the general populous in Chile, so I could avoid the topic. It was easy to avoid since it wasn't part of the discussions I was told to teach. I never ran into someone that wanted more of an explanation than the economic statement made above. I didn't start learning more about LDS polygamy until I returned from my mission and started fielding questions from classmates in college. Kind of embarrasing, really, to come home from a mission but know practically nothing about a practice that plays such a big role in LDS Church history and JS's theology.
So I explored.
In reading some materials I quickly learned that JS married multiple women, not for economic support, but for obedience to God's command. I had a conceptualization of JS that did not include the feature of polygamy, but suddenly, the realization that JS did practice polygamy causes one's mental image of JS to either remain vacant of this historical reality (self-deception) or allow this new knowledge to shape one's mental picture of JS.
JS had multiple wives. He practiced polygamy.
I'm okay with that.
I think most Mormons are.
JS had some 30 wives.
That's cool.
No problem.
A few years pass by and I learn that not only did JS have multiple wives:
- JS married teenagers. He married a girl, Nancy Winchester, for example, who was either fourteen or fifteen years old when married to JS. There were others: Helen Mar Kimball (14), Fanny Alger (16), Flora Ann Woodworth (16). There are other young women that JS married that I would consider underage.
- JS married women that were married to other men still alive. Let that sink in: JS married the wives of men that were still alive. This is called polyandry. This is a new word I had to allow into my vocabulary. But it's not like learning a new word for the joy of learning, this is about learning a new word because your hero is practicing the act of marrying a woman who is already married. They never told me that in seminary.
- JS married a woman (married) and her daughter (also married). In 1842 JS married Sylvia Sessions Lyon. Later that year JS married Patty Bartlett Sessions. Patty is the mother of Sylvia.
What if it was okay back in the 19th century for men to marry young women as young as 14/15 yrs. old? Social scientists estimate that the average age of marriage for women in 1840 was 21-22 years of age. Marrying a 14 year old is an outlier. Not normal. Not okay.
I really don't think I need to ask the question if polyandry was okay.
So here I am wondering what to do with a prophet that at one point in my life was possibly connected to polygamy, but is now married to single women, some women still married and some teenagers. This is kind of a punch in the face. What? My JS married a 14yr old?
JS had multiple wives. He practiced polygamy. He practiced polyandry. He married teenagers.
I'm okay with that?
I think most Mormons are?
JS had some 30 wives?
That's cool?
No problem?
You know what? I'm not okay with this. I'm not okay with anyone who wants to marry, seal or commit any marriage-like ceremony with a 14 year old. Not O.K. I've got daughters and I don't care if you're a prophet, president of the United States or whatever high and mighty title you claim, no one is touching my girls, or any other teenager for that matter and claiming them as sealed/married. In fact, I'm going to teach my girls to kick anyone's ass if they try something like this. I'd apologize for the crued language but maybe it can wake some of us up from the idea that a prophet has special permission from God to do these things. He doesn't. No one does. This is wrong.
And I'm not okay with any man marrying another man's wife. I really don't feel like I need to say much on this point. It's standard now and it was standard then. Married = off limits. I would like to think that most people, especially a prophet, can respect that.
Issue #1: What do I do with JS? Do I continue to hold him up as a prophet of God, able to communicate with the divine, when in fact this divine communication brought about, what I consider, a revolting practice (Again, not just polygamy, but polyandry and marrying teenagers)? Maybe I can turn a blind eye to this reality and look upon the edited history taught to me at Sunday School as all I need. But my brain just can't filter out what actually happened so that I can shape history the way I want it. This happened and it is wrong.
Issue #2: Why wasn't I told? Why wasn't this taught to me before going out on a mission? Shouldn't missionaries teaching people about the restoration and the prophetic calling of JS be made aware of a major piece of his teachings and practices? Shouldn't the people converting to Mormonism also be made aware of this significant feature of the prophet of the restoration? This seems like deception, in my opinion.
Yeah, I know I am a bit emotional about this, but I really feel deceived. Not telling the whole truth is the same as lying, in my opinion. And I highly doubt you would allow your 14yr old daughter to marry a grown man. At least, I hope you wouldn't. We would call such a man a perve, pedophile, etc. Why do we make an exception for JS?
I haven't done any research to find out if there is any evidence to suggest that JS had sexual relations or children with the additional women with whom he married. I don't know if I can handle that right now.
Search Ponder Pray Repeat
There is much mystery surrounding this topic, but let's go ahead and assume that it was one of the least favorable things Joseph practiced. Perhaps we could even say it was a mistake. I for one, will not make that judgement, there is far too little information to understand the depth of the situation. But, even if we were to determine that it was a mistake, even then, it would seem a mere speck of "dirt" on the character of an incredible man whose life was filled with works of goodness. A life whose effects overshadow the collective lives of everyone who has lived since. You can't comprehend the amount of good that his life brought about.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, save Jesus the Christ, he is one of the most pivotal beings in the plan of salvation. Without the work that he brought about, most notably the Book of Mormon, the relationship that I have developed with my savior and my god, would be not nearly as refined or strong. I owe him that, and I owe it to my God that he raised up, tutored and empowered such a man to carry out the crucial work which fulcrums our salvation and exaltation.
"You can't comprehend the amount of good that his life brought about" Then he is more than a man? More than a human being? I thought God was the orchestrator of salvation. God was the deity.
DeleteA speck of dirt? Brandon, this isn't like JS got upset sometimes at people for no good reason. Marrying women that were married to other men is a little bit more than a speck of dirt in my opinion. You can't just put this issue to the side and say, ah, we don't know enough, so not a big deal. Hardly. No one's perfect, I agree, but my goodness, this isn't just a speck. I can do specks, but this is something a bit bigger in the eyes of the many non-LDS people and former LDS people. This is driving people away from the church, so I think it needs to start becoming a little bit more noticed and addressed in church.
Brandon,
DeleteOthers here have already treated your "dirt" comment. But I will just elaborate on Travis' point about "we don't know enough." We know tons. We have the journals of some of the women, sworn affidavits of some of them, letters from at least one of the original (and later thrown away) husbands (though he was a worthy LDS by all measures), and more. We have the official revelations to compare with the practices. We have what LDS use from their scriptures to bolster the principle. All of this - Scripture, testimonies, writings, and history - is quite a bit to get quite a clear picture.
In fact, in my opinion, one of the main reasons why there are so many views on this topic and so much disagreement is because there is so much info to either know or not, inderstand or not, ignore or not. I find that most people have wide ranges of familiarity or lack thereof with any, let alone all, of this evidence. But there are some key things to consider, which I'll get to as I respond throughout this thread.
With all this evidence available it is mind-boggling that anyone could try to sweep it away so easily, let alone make that "dirt" statement. Perhaps you are not familiar with all this documentation-that's ok. Maybe you don't think the evidence is valid-I suggest you say that, if this is the case. But, yeah, feel free to follow up - maybe to specific evidences presented here. We should like to get a clearer sense of your position's backing.
One last point-part of the dirt comment was in comparison to "all the good" Joseph Smith did. I'm sure throughout this blog we'll have the opportunity to discuss just how much "good" came from Joseph's life. I'm sure we won't all agree about the quantity or quality but we'll have opportunity to back up our conclusions.
Brandon, pointing out that you we willing to overlook such a despicable characteristic in a man whom you believe is second to Christ in awesomeness is exactly why blind faith is so harmful and how so many atrocities have been committed throughout history in the name of god. Such a "speck of dirt" in a man called by and "empowered" by god calls into question everything he claims god commanded and/or revealed, to include The Book of Mormon.
ReplyDeleteI too went on a mission and I had many of the same teachers. For some reason I knew this information. It was taught openly and I was free to discuss and ask questions. He had many women married to him after he had died as well. Just a few years ago I read a history that expounded on this topic. Sure there were stories I didn't know. I have had confirmation that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. Not just a feeling, it was revelation spirit to spirit, being to being as you have too. I know two things: The History on Polygamy, Polyandry are incomplete. I am not sure even Joseph fully understood the revelations. So the doctrine taught generally is scripture mingled with the philosophies of men. We have many example of the Lord letting us as a people struggle through issues until finally he reveals a more clear path or just says ok your not getting it, I will leave and come back later. This does not lesson the mantel the person holds. Same goes for all lay clergy in the church. Two: Blind faith is very dangerous. We are to study it out. Go to the Lord in fasting and prayer. The promise is the same today as it has been for ages. If we lack wisdom let us ask of God.
ReplyDeleteAs for the speck of dirt...... Every person on the earth has specks of dirt (some more than others). IF we follow the reasoning of not following someone because they have specks then can not follow any pastor or any religious leader. The only one that is speck free is Jesus Christ himself.
I appreciate your thoughtful reply, but again, hardly a speck of dirt. And so if this is a speck of dirt are we admitting that this didn't come from God? If JS didn't fully understand it and was practicing the revelation that God gave him incorrectly, then doesn't this mean that JS was an inept prophet? He seems to get everything else right, but now that he starts marrying 14 year olds and women married to other men, just that is wrong. JS seemed pretty confident about his revelations, including this one.
DeleteIn my interaction with pastors, they are not trying to create a following. They are trying to point people to Christ. Christ is the man we follow, not an institution and certainly not a human being. I also find that when a person has a speck like this one, people stop following.
Pastors aren't trying to create a following? So, when they pass the plate EVERY WEEK, they aren't trying to create a following? When I get a large postcard in the mail that has in large red letters, SEX, and then on the back it says come to their church so that you can get some of the Lord's perspective on sex... they're not trying to lure people into their fold? When they build a church that can hold 30,000 people, they're not creating a following? Surely Protestant churches much more than Catholics or Mormons spend lots of energy marketing to people to attend their churches. Sure, they don't have to be re-baptized, but they want them there.
DeleteI state unequivocally that Christ's Church (by that I mean Peter, James, John and so on) from the very beginning was trying to create a following. That should be an easily recognizable feature of Christ's Church.
And again, I ask Travis, how do you know about Christ? You cannot escape the fact that, apart from your own prayers, all that you know of Christ comes through men: apostles, teachers, seventies, and other men ordained in His Church. The only choice to make is exactly what time do you stop accepting teachings from the Church as truth. 144 AD? 444 AD?
Latter-day saints and Catholics (and the other "orthodox" flavors) are the only ones that consistently understand this: You can't separate scripture and the church. They are same. Now, we argue that the Catholic Church lost authority when it lost the apostles, and that it took Christ himself to restore His Church again. But we both understand that scripture comes through Christ's Church. The Church does not come from scripture. Christ did not actually write scripture, he simply spoke. But he did create the Church, by which we obtained the scripture. Think about that.
"So, when they pass the plate EVERY WEEK, they aren't trying to create a following?"
DeleteWhen they pass the plate every week they are collecting Tithes, just as lds do every week, for the same purpose. They choose to pass a plate to make it more convinent. You may not agree with how they do it, but it is no different than your bishop (pastor) collecting tithes/offerings after sacrement EVERY WEEK.
"When I get a large postcard in the mail, they're not trying to lure people into their fold?" Nope, they are trying to help people find CHRIST's fold. They are trying to reach the hopeless, and help them find peace in GOD. Reminds me a little of your "Missionary's" going door to door. Again same thing, different approach.
"When they build a church that can hold 30,000 people, they're not creating a following?" I guess here you could say yes, they are creating a following of CHRIST. Those 30,000 people are all worshiping God. Is it a large church you have a problem with? If there's more than 300 people worshiping at once, they should divide into wards?? What if all your churches burnt down and you only had one for everybody to meet in. Would you not go because there were 30,000 people there? Yet again, just a different way of doing things. Not wrong, just different.
"Surely Protestant churches much more than Catholics or Mormons spend lots of energy marketing to people to attend their churches." Funny I could say the same thing about you and your Missionary's worldwide. Are you against the spending of money and energy to help preach the gospel to others? Doesn't the Bible tell us to spread the gospel? Would you not donate some of your energy/time/money if it helped just one person who was desperate and miserable find a saving faith in God?
Bottom line, they are not trying to get you to go to "their church". They are trying to get you into Christ's church. I am sorry if their methods offends you, or you do not approve of their methods. But it seems to me I see the same desire demonstrated in different methods. Maybe we should open our eyes to Different churches taking different approachs to things. I think all would benefit from this.
(Just as a after thought, I am not saying that all churches have their hearts set on Christ. "Wolves in sheeps clothing" This is assuming you are speaking of the ones that do.)
The point that Travis made here, Bridgette, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was somehow fundamentally different from other churches because we seek to create a following. Indeed, we do seek a following, we seek people to become part of the body of Christ by being baptized and becoming members of His Church. Most of what you argued up there proves my point: All Churches seek to create a following. And just as you say Protestant churches are pointing people to Christ, we say and endeavor to do the exact same, by our own lights.
Delete"Are you against the spending of money and energy to help preach the gospel to others?"
No, I am not. We do it often. But Travis (in the post about Mormons being Christians) states that this is somehow offensive when we do it, but when other churches seek to proselytize each other (or even Latter-day Saints) it' s just fine. Again, we do this a lot, so I'm not faulting churches for trying to increase membership. But I do think it's unfair that when we do it it's believed to be nefarious.
"Bottom line, they are not trying to get you to go to "their church". They are trying to get you into Christ's church." I can't follow you there. I'm pretty sure they want me to go to their church. On the postcard/ad in the paper/etc it doesn't say, "Please attend the Church of your choice this Sunday." It says, "Come worship with us."
"Maybe we should open our eyes to Different churches taking different approachs to things. I think all would benefit from this." 100% Agreement here.
The main reason why I participate in this blog is not to convince anyone of the "rightness" of Mormonism. That cannot be objectively proven or disproven. But I do wish to dispel the false notions that our religion is somehow beneath other faiths. Some faiths are different in their doctrine, but our Church seeks to teach the world of our Faith in the Savior and what men and women must do to obtain happiness and salvation. But you cannot de-Christianize us or de-legitimize us by using any standard that does not also de-legitimize every other church. Travis's argument that we were unique in trying to create a following is demonstrably false. All churches do it. It is the reason a church exists.
Adam - Thank you for your respectful reply. I appreciate all your comments and your opinions. I, however have the unique perspective of being members of both LDS, and Non-LDS Christian. I sympathize with the point that you can't follow me in that these churches are just trying to point you to Christ. I couldn't understand this mindset eithier until about 12 years ago. But I tell you with complete honesty, it is the truth. No they don't send out postcard with just "attend a local church" and "good luck finding one." They put an invitation on the postcard with their address as a resource to use. Whether you go to the Church of God church that sent the card, or the Baptist church across town.(I use these only as examples), does not matter to most pastors. I understand this is hard to believe, but honestly this is how it is. (Of course, they will more than likely not point you to anything other than Bible Believing Faiths.) I have actually had pastors suggest other church's when I have told them we didn't prefer to attend there, but were still looking for a church to attend. Again, I understand how this is a foreign concept, but they do not wish to create a following, only in the way of pointing people to Christ, and helping you in your walk.
DeleteA good example of this would be missionary's. I hate to bring up things that have been already. But when Mormon Missionary's come to my door and I tell them I am Christian and have a great relationship with Christ, they proceed to tell me about their church and try to convert me. When speaking to Non-LDS Missionary's and they are told this. Their reply is "Thats great!!" And they move on. They do not say how Presby's (EXample) are incomplete and I should go to this Baptist church. This is just an example of the different mindset. LDS seem to think of the "Body of Christ" as a specific church (LDS), most other Christians I have had contact with view the "Body of Christ" as any Christian who has truly "been saved", with no limitations to the denomination to which they attend.
"I do wish to dispel the false notions that our religion is somehow beneath other faiths." Again, I have no false notions about your church. I once was a member, I know what is believed by the church and why, and I left for reasons that may/may not be discussed later. I do not feel, however that LDS church is somehow beneath other faiths, I just feel it is different than Biblical Christianity. Plain in simple, it is different.
Thanks again, Adam, for the respectful reply. God Bless.
Adam,
DeleteI clearly stated that IN MY INTERACTION with preachers, they are not trying to create a following. Preacher X does not want a bunch of X-followers, he (or she) is trying to bring people to Christ.
At no point have I said anything against LDS efforts to do the same. I simply note that if this 'speck of dirt' would happen with someone else other than JS, people would not follow that person anymore. That seems likely to me anyway.
Well, you're right. I inferred a bit too much from your original comment.
DeleteWell, I don't think of this as a speck of dirt, or a blemish. I see it more clearly if I distinguish a few things:
1) Polygamy was received as a revelation and a commandment.[Doctrine] 2) Fallible people (include Joseph and his wives here) made marriage choices in their personal efforts to fulfill that commandment. [Practice]
I don't know why those women already married thought that in heaven they'd rather be married to Joseph Smith. It is worth noting though, that after he died, I think about half of the so-called polyandrous wives stayed with their husbands, while the other half left theirs and went to Utah and married another. Perhaps for some, things in the original marriage weren't so great. Too little information to know for sure.
Why did Brother Kimball want his daughter to marry Joseph? Because apparently it would unite their families. I think that's a terrible reason to marry somebody. That's not doctrine. That's a personal decision with a complex nexus of motivations.
Ok You don't know me and hopefully never will, but this is pathetic. I think you are trying to get your self excommunicated. I'm sorry you have such a hard time with the Mormon religion. I am a Mormon and I did know most of the information you just posted. However I would also appreciate it if you sighted your sources. Rough Stone Rolling is a good biography on Smith and does portray his weaknesses very clearly. Like the person above mentioned, we learn line upon line and precept upon precept. It would be great if Joseph Smith had all the answers at once, but do we always have the right answers when we want them? He WAS a prophet and I KNOW that he DID receive revelation from God, but did he make mistakes, yes. Do I blindly follow my leaders no. I HAVE prayed and FASTED and Struggled myself with TOUGH questions. But, unlike you I have turned to scripture for answers. Any leader of Religion has made mistakes. Think of the Crusaders, many of the catholic priests, even Muslims and Jews have their stories. Abraham lied to the Pharoah about his wife and God sent curses down. David desired Bathsheba...Leaders can make mistakes. We are after all human.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
DeleteYou react with emotion and that is certainly fair. Allow me to clarify some things and answer some of your accusations.
First, I, like you am praying. Thus the title of the blog. It is not some trap to fool you. I live by this motto and I am glad to hear you do as well. So, please do not accuse me of not fasting or praying in this journey and exploration. I was accused by a family member of deceiving the people around me because I was have these questions and not telling anyone. In response to this accusation I started a blog to be as open and honest about my exploration, questions and feelings.
The sources are the links in the post. I stuck to mostly just one web source because others are somewhat too critical for my taste and I felt them inappropriate. The website I link to is not the only source I have ever looked at for sure. I agree, I enjoyed Rough Stone Rolling as well. However, the blog format is somewhat limiting and the website I used had some wonderful links to other sources which I looked at and read. This website seemed the most appropriate and easy to read. Yes, there are other sources, but a blog is not writing a history.
I don't know you, Anonymous, and I wouldn't mind meeting you. What is pathetic about this post? Is it pathetic to be honest about what I have learned and to be public about it? I don't think so.
You admit in your response that JS made mistakes. Are you saying that he made the mistake of using his priesthood calling and power to manipulate women to marry him? What mistakes are you referring to?
You touch on something else that I have been really struggling with. Why should I fear being excommunicated by the church for expressing my thoughts and opinions? I live in this beautiful country so that I am not suppressed by larger entities. I live in the US for the freedom of speech. Why should any organization get rid of people that are really questioning and putting out their opinion? I'm not trying to get excommunicated I'm exercising a God-given right. The cool thing about this country is that indeed the LDS church does have the right to excommunicate any member it pleases according to its own internal policies. That's great, but does this really count for excommunication?
DeleteIf you did turn to the scriptures, you should have a very good reason, or two, why Joseph didn't fulfill (I think) ANY of the requirements of the DnC 132 revelation on plural marriage. See my post below for details. Feel free to respond there.
DeleteTravis,
ReplyDeleteI can understand your frustrations about feeling slighted, but deceived, hardly not. After all, who at 19 years old knows all of the doctrines of the Kingdom, and if having had them expounded, understands them completely. I also was frustrated when I would be in discussions and missionaries would talk about the financial, blah, blah, blah. That is purely not true. That is man trying to understand why God does what He does. Regardless of why he commanded it, I believe he commanded for a season, just as he had before. I always wondered why the true principle wasn't taught: "When God commands, we obey" whether it is to offer up our son (Abraham/Isaac) or to take another spouse (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.). Of course, the appropriateness and timeliness are in God's hands not man's. Nonetheless, the documentation of sealings conducted in Nauvoo while Joseph was alive, as well as posthumously, has been published knowledge for quite a while. Polygamy, while not outlawed in the US until 1882 ( the law was inputted as a pork barrel element of another Land Grant Act authorizing Land to be set aside for Agricultural schools (ie. OSU is a fine example) and it was put in because no one was going to vote against Education at the time; again I would love to talk about the politics of polygamy, but I will choose brevity for now; Sorry I couldn't help myself: The first such Act was passed in 1862 another in the 1870s, and then the final one in 1882. It was a political issue over land, not an issue really about polygamy, just like the martyrdom wasn't really about polygamy but about political power), was not heavily practiced but was practiced, not just in the LDS church. Today, polygamy continues to be practiced throughout the world. THe Policy of the LDS Church is that, say a Nigerian polygamist wanting to join the church must stop the practice of polygamy, but should still financially support the former spouse, as well as suppor the children. I could go on but I won't. Many "stories" have been circulated for over 150 years now. None of these things are new, and being a Historian, seminary teacher for 5 years, and studying a lot of the writings from the Nauvoo period, I have read most of what is out there. You can also have full access to everyhting in the church History museum, where journals, marriage records, sealing documents, etc. can be found. Many of these stories were promnulgated by those in the church (specifically the Nauvoo Stake President who was excommunicated; He thought he should have been in the 1st Presidency and wasn't called) in the 1840's who, for personal reasons and pride, left the church, and led the mobs to the slaughter of Joseph. I would have no problem talking about the historocity of Polygamy in the Modern Church. Also, the principles and doctrines of polygamy are outlined in scripture, so there is nothing hidden there.
Alan,
DeleteI'm not sure to what you were referring with the 'financial blah,blah,blah,' statement. Could you clarify?
So are you saying that JS didn't perform polyandry or marry 14 year old girls?
But I guess your trying to address my feeling deceived. Well you may not think its valid to feel deceived, but of course, you don't choose the emotions I feel. I feel deceived. So do many other people that have left the church already. Maybe we need to start listening to our lost sheep in order to understand how to help them. http://mormonmatters.org/. Check out podcast #73. I'm not the only one feeling deceived and it's about time we as a church do something about it.
Yes, I will clarify. I was agreeing with you that too many people say that the reason for the revelation on Polygamy was due to financial reasons, as well as other reasons I find to be man-made. I believe the reason for the revelation was because God commanded it, then later suspended the practice of it in 1890.
DeleteTo address the other issues. You are right, I can't choose your emotions, or tell you or anyone else how to feel. I apologize if it came across that way. However, we all can question the validity of a claim. For example, some people live in fear. They feel something, and allegedly experience something, but it may or may not be founded/validated. If it is founded then it is a valid/rationale emotion. If it is unfounded, it is not validated and psychologists might call it schizophrenia or some other form of pychosis. Some believe (feel) that Joseph Smith was a Sociopath or a charlatan, while others believe(feel)he was a prophet, seer, and revelator. Each individual gets their feelings/beliefs validated in different ways. I am reviewing this post much like I have previous ones, by validating/reviewing the evidence from your research or information posted. I'm just saying that your research on this topic hasn't been thorough enough to me, taking into account all the various factors. I will never tell someone how to believe or feel, but I will make sure that they have made a well informed decision, based on the facts of the research, not on emotion, sensationalism, or ethnocentric constructs of any kind. I have the same kind of analysis when wathcing the various talking heads on the Cable News Channels.
Apparently I was too long-winded.
ReplyDeleteI will address the more social aspects you bring up with the issue: age, mother & daughter, etc.
I believe this is an example of what I call Modernist History, or Revisionist History, which is based upon modern day viewpoints, social mores, etc, being imposed upon the past. We tend to not understand how anyone could x, y ,z. Using a presentist view inhibits one from seeing things for what they are. We need to be more objective and understanding in our approach to searching, pondering, and praying. How would the modern "Saint" view Mary, mother of Jesus, and her "relationship" with Joseph, both before immaculate conception and after? She was after all a young girl, at most 16 years old according to most Historians. Most put her age at 13 years old. How would we/do we (including myself) view incest, or sibling marriage? In the early Biblical days, it was inevitable, wasn't it, especially if they were to follow the command to marry, and "multiply and replenish"? After the Flood there were only 8 persons that survived. Again, inevitable for relatives to marry and multiply. How far down the family tree is it ok? Does it matter the religious context (Muslim, Hindu, LDS, Baptist, etc.)? There are polygamists of all nationalities and religions, including Protestants in the US. What about arranged marriages, where young kids are married to each other, sometimes a teen to a child in some countries. By the way, Arranged marriages have less than a 12% Divorce rate on average. Does that matter? (to me agency does, but just thought I would throw it out there). the country? social customs? etc? Now I am not advocating incest, marrying young teens, polygamy, polyandry, polygeny, etc. What I am advocating to all is to not look at the facts through a skewed lense, whether rose-colored or foggy, blind faith or skeptic, but to look again at the mark, not beyond it. Sorry to ramble.
I am not revising history, Alan. I am looking at history and learning from it. It was unacceptable in the 19th century for a man to marry another man's wife. That's not revising history. It was also extremely uncommon for men to marry 14 year old girls. That's not revising history. Yes, it happened, and you seem to think that because JS wasn't the only one doing it that it was socially acceptable or even deemed appropriate. My hermeneutic from history is that I will never allow this to happen in my family. There is a difference between history and hermeneutic. You have a different hermeneutic than I and you are entitled to that. However, you accuse me of revising history when the very history you read in the church manuals and even the D&C has been clearly edited for theological purposes. Don't talk to me about revisionist history.
DeleteThere are other cultures where it has been acceptable, both ancient and modern. You are right (sort of) about the difference between history and hermeneutic. Some would say that what is history comes from the interpretation. In evaluating American History textbooks (I've reviewed over 20 of them), you see many different "histories", as well as interpretations of the historical events, based on pov and cultural contextualization. Many say that Mormons were kicked out of Missouri and Illinois for religious reasons, while I attest, based on primary source evidence, that persecution was mainly based on political and social reasons dealing with Abolition, balance of power issues in the government, financial crises in the country (Panic of 1837), etc. Another example is the treatment of Crispus Attucks and his ethnicity. His ethnicity has changed in History books, based upon the movement of the day, Brown, Black, or Red. We also see the magnifying of events, people, and issues, in the Present, when in the past they weren't so magnified. Yes, revisionist history is alive and well in society. Maybe we will jsut have to respectfully disagree on that, which is fine.
DeleteYou bring up a very good point, Travis--that we need to know our history. However, as has been pointed out in previous posts, the story of polygamy needs to be approached with an 1840 viewpoint rather than one of 2012. In addition, it should be mentioned that the purpose for marriage in the early days of the church wasn't the same as today. For example, one purpose of Joseph's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball could have been just to unite the Smiths to the Kimballs (since Helen was daughter of Heber C. Kimball). I didn't come up with this idea myself, bot got it from http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamy/Marriages_to_young_women
ReplyDeleteI highly recommend you read what this has to say about Joseph's marriages to young women (remember, even the thinnest coin has two sides). Also, if you read it I would suggest going to the link in the article to the Law of Adoption. I hope you'll discover, as I have, that perhaps Joseph Smith doesn't deserve the ass kicking you seem to suggest.
Thanks for the link. No, I'm not going to kick JS's ass. He's dead! I'm just going to kick any man's ass who tries to pull this with my daughters. That's all.
DeleteI read the link and find it lacking. Even the link I had for the blog post seemed much more revealing about the topic. It seems to me that FAIR is one of many sources to take.
The difference in all of this is that you and many other active LDS people are cool with this stuff. You've got a way to understand it. Great. I don't think it's okay for a prophet of God to for himself think its okay to marry other women already married. Big problem with this one. I also really don't think that it was as socially acceptable as we hope it was for a man to marry a 14 year old girl. We may want it to be, but the social research I cite says otherwise.
If you need someone to kick someone' s ass on behalf of your daughter, call me.
I can sympathize, to a certain extent, with your surprise as to your recent discoveries on this topic. But again, I think great care needs to be taken before we let our emotions dictate our responses.
ReplyDeleteI read In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith by Todd Compton some 8 years ago. It is probably the most researched book on the topic, containing many primary and secondary sources from the women who where sealed to the Prophet before he died. It was published in 1997 I disagree, however, with some of his assumptions, especially his classification of certain marriages as "polyandry." (this book is the first I know of to make this accusation) It is clear from reading the primary sources, that the understanding from those women were that since their legal husbands were not members (or, in a couple cases--not worthy members), they were sealed to the prophet for celestial reasons. At the end of each of these summaries, he states, "Absolutely nothing is known of this marriage after the ceremony" (p. 465).
There were a few women who rejected marriage proposals from the Prophet, and there were no repercussions, no excommunications. Just disappointment, I suppose. As well, the church and Utah law were quite liberal with their divorce requirements for women. One of Brigham's wives asked for a divorce and it was freely granted.
Though I am personally repulsed by the idea of its practice, I must agree with this historian's summation: "... I think there are many of us who can only understand polygamy in terms of the Abrahamic test. And the Abrahamic test, as I understand it, is not that you sacrifice a person or someone who is most dear to you but is that you sacrifice a principle.
In Abraham's case it was the principle of human life, and in polygamy it's that understanding of the sanctity of a monogamous bond between a man and his wife. For reasons known only to God, that was the test required of the Saints during that terribly difficult period. ..."-Terryl Givens
And as a side note, didn't you ever read or have the Encyclopedia of Mormonism? It has a really good article on Plural Marriage. http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/EoM/id/4391/show/4029
No, Adam, I wasn't at seminary the day they handed out the encyclopedias ;)
DeleteSorry for the sarcasm. This upsets me to no end. This is such a huge part of our history. Why is it not in our church manuals?!
The link I provided in the original post includes a link to the book by Compton.
Honestly, Adam, this is really disturbing to me. Polygamy is one thing, but polyandry? 14yr olds? Man, I'm sure there was some type of explanation but its really hard to care what that is. It's wrong.
Abrahamic test? Really? You know, other people look at this and say, this is kinda like Waco, TX/David Koresh, or Jonestown. I'm not saying that, but man, this is so sick to me and the rest of the general world, and no, the general world is not out to get the church. They are seeing in our history something we don't even talk about amongst ourselves and, yes, they think that's a problem.
I downloaded the book you cited. I will read it and get back to you.
Well, read that book. But you got to dissect what the primary sources say and the author's interpretations. I give him credit for doing a lot of legwork, but sometimes he connects dots in ways that I don't. I think it's a good idea to balance his perspective with this review, http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=290
DeleteThough I do say it was quite common for 14 year olds to be married in the Victorian Era. (you've read Pride & Prejudice---Lydia gets married at 15 to Wickham who is almost 30) It was common for men to "sew their wild oats" (i.e. sleep around) until about 30-35 and then settle down with a teenager to start a family. Again, I find this idea replusive. The "average" you offer does not tell us the frequency. Roughly half of those would be younger than 18, and half older. Even if 20% of marriages were of girls 14-18, that's still quite common.
But why do we "accept" what the Prophet did? Because even after all I've read, I am convinced that the "principle" of plural marriage was consistent with the idea that it was primarily to raise up seed to the Lord, as stated in the Book of Mormon. Was it practiced perfectly? Were all Men and Women happy with it? No. The sacrificed their opportunity of "romantic love" in order to grow the church membership. Their did what they thought was their duty, even though it was a repulsive and difficult thing to do. And I find that honorable, whether you do or not. And if you read their journals nearly all of Joseph's wives bear testimony that it was confirmed to them that they had made the right decision to be sealed to him. So don't be too judgmental.
Well, why do you still read Psalms knowing that king David was an adulterer (arguably a rapist by using his power to force himself on Bathsheba) and murderer? Are you really prepared to start cutting up parts of the bible because the authors did things that you don't agree with? Noah got drunk. Judah slept with a prostitute. Why did Moses command a conquest of a supposedly sovereign nation of Canaan?
This sword you are slashing about is double-edged. You may need to consider the implications of laying down harsh judgements of this kind. I'm not talking about any church discipline... I'm talking about how you will be left with no religion at all at the end of this crusade. You cannot apply your personal moral judgements that you have received from a decadent, materialistic society like ours to the 17th, 18th, or 1st or 2nd centuries. Their souls mattered more than anything. They prayed for confirmation, and then they did it. Feelings of romantic love were notions that they didn't see as important as always following the Lord. And they believed sincerely that this was his command.
Travis: "Why is it not in our church manuals?"
DeleteA bunch of reasons. #1, in 1904, The government had the Smoot trial. It was a trial to see if Elder Smoot could be a US Senator. The federal government used it as an in depth investigation into all church teachings and proceedings to verify that polygamy had ceased. The government had put us on notice that they would be watching to see if we secretly in any way encouraged or glorified polygamy.
#2 We don't practice it anymore. It's time to move on. We don't want to encourage people to live it. You have to balance the presentation of the topic in context of what it was in its time with how we should live as Saints now.
#3 Church classes exist to help us live as we are commanded to today. Church education is about forming us as individuals. To some extent, church history is a huge part of that. But should we be required to read the minutes of the every General Conference starting in 1930? Or read the transcripts of the trials against the Prophet (no convictions)?
There are several great LDS and non-LDS historians who have been granted complete access to church resources to write detailed histories of various church episodes. And I personally have made use of them because I have an interest in them. But, honestly, there is no saving power in them. Church education is about teaching me what I need to do to be a true disciple. The early Christians didn't write exhaustive histories of Christ. The gospels are not a complete history. They tell a brief summary of the last 3 years of his life, but include all of the most important teachings and miracles. They are not written to be a balanced, but to promote faith in the Savior and his Church. The Modern Church does the same.
I have taught about Polygamy as a seminary teacher (OK and AZ), as well as a US History teacher in Public School (OK and UT), more specifically when I taught at Norman High. I taught the various viewpoints of believers and non-believers in the principle, as well as the social contexts, ancient, Antebellum, and Modern, foreign and domestic. I answered questions as students posed them, but did not have an infinite amount of time to discuss every specific situation, nor did I need to or the topic require it. I taught about it when I taught Gospel Doctrine as well, but again had a limited amount of time. Plus, you teach the principles and then evaluate the actions based on the principle. Solomon vs. Abraham, Joseph Smith vs. David. The lives of these men are a Case Study for whether the applications of the principles of polygamy have been adhered to or not.
DeleteOn your own site you have this link: http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/
ReplyDeleteWhich discuss some of the very topics you were talking about. In my opinion, for someone who claims membership in the Latter Day Saint church, you are playing fire by reacting this way on the web. This post alone has you questioning not only the prophet Joseph Smith, but the church and it's practices and teaching.
As a side note, God will not let his people be led astray. When someone in a leadership position starts to abuse their power or take it in a wrong direction, I am sure the Lord addresses that. And I am NOT saying that Joseph Smith died because he was leading members astray or participating in these practices that you mention. But IF he was, then I am sure the Lord addressed it as he saw was necessary.
The Lord asks many things of his people. And as pointed out in other comments, it is sometimes just to know that we will respond the way we should. (Abraham and Issac) I would strongly caution you to think twice about what you post on the internet as it is permanent. You can not "un-say" these things.
Also, some source sitings would be beneficial is backing up anything you wish to say when you are condemning a prophet called of God. (And remember that...he was called. There was a reason that Joseph Smith was chosen to restore the church. God chose him and that should be enough for us.)
Also, it is very possible that some things that people think of Joseph Smith were "created" by people who were angry with him, as stated by another commenter. There were plenty of people who were angry with Joseph Smith and other leaders in the church.
Heavenly Father stopped the practice of polygamy for a reason. Joseph was called for a reason. It all goes back to whether or not you can put your trust in Heavenly Father. Can you trust that he called Joseph? Can you trust that there was a reason for that? Can you trust that Heavenly Father knew what he was doing when he instated the practice of polygamy? And can you trust that Heavenly Father knows when to remove those who are leading his church, while still trusting that he called them in the first place? People are not perfect. But God is.
Putting my trust in Heavenly Father? I trust God just fine. I have a hard time trusting a man that would marry 14yr olds and women already married to other men. You suggest that I'm just suppose to sit back, let JS do what ever he wants and say that's God at work? That's a little hard for me right now, and pretty hard for a lot of other questioning and former Mormons. This statement you make is why so many people outside of the church believe Mormons have blind faith. You just believe without allowing people within the fold to ask legitimate questions and express legitimate emotions. I trust God and can agree with you that humans are not perfect and God is. However, if this is all one big mistake on the behalf of fallible JS then I questions the truthfulness of the church's claim to restoration. This type of mistake is exactly the type of stuff the restoration was to stop as a part of God's kingdom on earth. Divine revelation is suppose to help us not make big mistakes like the crusades, Spanish Inquisition and dare I say it, polyandry. So yes, I really question these things. So do many of the lost sheep of this church.
DeleteTrav - I think it is refreshing to find someone within the church willing to speak their opinions without fear of what will be said because of it. I personally do not understand some of the replies that were posted attacking Trav for his opinions and feelings. Why do you feel like you have to attack others who do not share your feelings? Is it too hard to just state your opinion and why respectively? Does it threaten you so much to have people that hold different beliefs than your own? It is one thing to disagree, but to attack others that you disagree with is petty and shows your maturity in your faith.
ReplyDeleteI will keep my feeling about this subject to myself, I only want to say, Yes, nobody is perfect, but if nothing else, this goes to speak of character. "By his fruits..." To be honest if this was not JS, would you be so fast to say it doesn't matter. To say you have to look at the time, I think you are missing the point. This was not three thousand years ago, this is a little more than a hundred. To my understanding it was against the law to pracitice this in most places of that time. If it was against the law, you have to assume that it was not common practice (outside of the church). Nobody is saying it did not happen, I believe it is just being said, it wasn't the norm. Everybody can find exceptions to any rule.
I just have one thing to say to the quote stated earlier by Anoymous: "As for the speck of dirt...... Every person on the earth has specks of dirt (some more than others). IF we follow the reasoning of not following someone because they have specks then can not follow any pastor or any religious leader. The only one that is speck free is Jesus Christ himself." I think without knowing it you have hit the nail on the head. Every person has specks of dirt. That is why every Non-LDS believer I have ever come in contact with would say they do not follow any pastor or religious leader. "The only one that is speck free is Christ himself", and we should only "follow" Christ Jesus and HIS teachings, for all else are not worthy for us to follow. Just something to think about...
Polygamy was not outlawed in the US until the Morrill Land Grant Acts were passed by Congress. There was one passed in 1862 (didn't have enforcability), and the final one in 1882 (was enforcable as demonstrated by many LDS church leaders going to prison or moving to Canada or Mexico). During the life of Joseph Smith, polygamy was legal in the US. Less than 15% (most Historians actually say 6-9%) of adult LDS members practiced polygamy prior to 1882, which is some of the reason why some had a problem with it when practiced. Some thought that it should be open to all church members. The general US population had minimal participation in polygamy, but there are evidences. Polygamy is still legal in many parts of the world and within many cultures and religions.
DeleteI seem to be able to find laws enacted as early as 1833, in the seperate states. Specifically Illinois. I found a copy of "Revised laws of Illonios" in 1833, where it states no man or woman can be married to two men or women at same time. But, I do not know alot on the subject, so I will leave it at that.
DeleteSimilar to statements made ad naseum throughout the past 150 years, ther eis a difference between being legally married and being sealed, or spiritually married. So, those we call polygamists from Nauvoo in the 1840's were legally married to one person. The same occurs today with those in COlorado City, AZ, et al. So, to the world a polygamist is legally only married to one person. No different than a monogamous relationship in the eyes of the law. Where polygamists get hammered is with welfare fraud, anti-adultery laws, or co-habitation laws. So, it depends on the state. The laws I mentioned were Federal laws, which are enacted, enforced, and applied differently than state laws. Prior to 1862, I haven't seen any cases of Early LDS members who practiced polygamy being arrested or prosecuted for being spiritually married to more than one person. Notice that FLDS polygamist in the YFZ ranch case in TX were not being arrested for polygamy, but for breaking laws regarding marriage age, sexual abuse. They weren't arrested for polygamy.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnon said, "To say you have to look at the time, I think you are missing the point. This was not three thousand years ago, this is a little more than a hundred."
DeleteI beg your pardon, but I think you are missing the point. True, it was only 170 years ago (1841-44). But that number is meaningless. The important question to ask is what was the world like? In 1840, how did you travel? Boat, horse, foot. And in 44 BC, how did Julius Caesar travel? Same. How was medicine practiced? Virtually the same. Galen of 2nd century Rome was still the standard textbook until about 1850 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen). How was mail sent? The same. There's a table below that shows that life expectancy was the same. I could go on and on. So, when we want to see perspective, it is not enough to simply state the time elapsed. The fact is, if you could measure progress from 200 BC to 1800 AD, and then compare 1850 until today, that last 162 years would seem like 5000-10000 years of progress. The world that existed then is simply not intuitive to us in our modern age.
And Travis, I think you miss the point by constantly saying "he married 14 year-old girls when the average was 18-22." First, there are other statistics that show a younger average... but please let me clarify.
Check this table out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_time
Life expectancy stayed between 25-30 for pretty much every human time period until the mid 20th century. If you made it to your upper teens, in some time periods you could expect 30-40 years more (maybe 55ish). But today when life expectancy is around 75, people get married, on average, in their mid 20s. The marriage age is still proportionally the same when compared to people's conception of how much time they had in life. It is not that hard to believe that a lot of young women had at least thought of who they would be getting married to by the age of 15. Now, most didn't until late teens/early 20s, but it wasn't shocking to see a 14 year old get married. This is clearly evident in European literature.
The case of Helen Mar Kimball is well chronicled here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Mar_Kimball
She did not have sex with the prophet. She continued live with her parents. This article doesn't say it, but I seem to recall from Compton's book that the only difference that she noticed in her life after the sealing was that at a dance she wasn't allowed to dance with other boys because her father told her that when she was older she would eventually become Joseph's earthly wife as well. But Smith was murdered before that could happen and ended up marrying another for "time only."
The underlying reasons for these marriages were primarily theological. The revelation on polygamy cannot be reduced to Joseph's sex drive. It is much more complex than that.
To add another case in point regarding social customs and historical context (in order to prevent sensationalism due to modern social constructs and ethnocentricity). Many may be able to relate to and understand this case in point: Mary, mother of Jesus was said to be between 13 and 16 years old when she gave birth to the Son of God, Jesus Christ. She was said to have been between 7 and 12 years old when betrothed to Joseph, a quite older man. Joseph, Mary's husband and Jesus' step-father, was, according to most Historians, at youngest was 36, and some say as old as 90 years old (He married Mary after being betrothed to her following the death of his first wife). This was not out of the ordinary during the time period and according to Jewish custom. Other marriages of the day were performed for political reasons, economic reasons by joining two powerful families together, or for spiritual reasons bonding two religiously "elite" families together. These customs have continued in perpetuity in some regions of India and Persia.
DeleteSome may need to ask themselves regarding this outlandish age issue: Why would God place His perfect Son in such a situation? Travis has posed in prior posts the question, "What can we learn about God or Christ from this?" I would ask, "Is using age the factor we should consider?" Or the age disparity? Just a thought.
I think you hit some nerves with this one Trav. :)
ReplyDeleteTravis: I am stunned that so many people are so quick to defend JS on this topic. I am with you, if my daughter came to me(at 14) with something like this I would lose my mind. The fact that JS had a "speck of dirt" is a radical implication that this is his only fault. If someone today was an outstanding person in society, did much great work but later was found to be a pedophile, nobody on these posts would be going to bat for him. As anonymous points out "Nobody is perfect" and that "God would not lead his people astray" just goes to show the disconnect when it comes to how people view JS. If he was lead by God, do you really believe God would tell him to take teenage wifes and wifes of other men without telling him more information. Is that not leading him astray or at least everyone else astray. To quote LDS publications on the subject doesn't give a true insight, but a filtered view at best. If you read BoM Jacob 2:23-29 it clearly says that what David and Solomon in the old testament was wrong, however in D&C 132 v37-39 it says it was not a sin. Explain that please. If the BoM is the most correct book ever written why did God give revelation later that contradicts it.
ReplyDeleteWhat David and Solomon did wrong was take wives and concubines to themselves of their own volition and desires of the flesh, showing a lack of faith in the Lord. Solomon was also seen as disobedient in taken a "foreign" wife, or those not of the covenent of Israel. They also trangressed in that they didn't follow the proper process indicated in the Law of Moses, which was that they had to be given to them by the Lord. "and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me” (D&C 132:38). Meaning, having many wives wasn't the sin. What was was having wives not of the covenent, and/or not given by the revealed process of the time, as indicated in the law of Moses. In other words, Not of me or my way of doing things. So, the D&C revelation does not contradict, but corroborates, supports, and clarifies the issue.
DeletePresident Joseph Fielding Smith further explained that the Lord “did not condemn Solomon and David for having wives which the Lord gave them.
Delete“Now turn to [2 Samuel] 12:7–8 and you will find that the Lord gave David wives. In your reading of the Old Testament you will also find that Solomon was blessed and the Lord appeared to him and gave him visions and great blessings when he had plural wives, but later in his life, he took wives that the Lord did not give him.” (Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:214.)
Jacob 2:24–31clearly teaches that plural wives may be taken only when doing so is authorized by the Lord. David’s taking plural wives was authorized by the Lord, for David’s wives “were given unto him of me [the Lord], by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power” (D&C 132:39). No plural marriages are authorized by the Lord today, and any attempt to justify them from ancient scripture will result in condemnation from the Lord. from Old Testament Student Manual
Just a complement to what Alen said:
DeletePay special attention to verse 30:
"For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things."
Here, we read clearly that the Lord said polygamy would sometimes exist, but only when He so commanded.
And just to throw a little perspective in the mix here, modern protestants shouldn't be so quick to condemn polygamy. From the mouth of the first protestant, Martin Luther:
ReplyDelete"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330.)
Joseph Smith and his wives "searched, pondered, and prayed" about each decision. I believe that they believed that they were divinely commanded to do so. Whether or not we feel comfortable doing the same ourselves is another question.
Adam,
DeleteI think you hit the nail on the head. I cannot condemn JS et al. because it's not my job to do so. At the same time I must ask myself if I believe in the theology that would justify such behavior. Do I believe in D&C132 as from God? My wife and I read it last night together, along with Jacob 2. I do not condemn JS et al. Judgment is for God to take care of. But I still have to ask myself if this scripture is going to inform my theology and subsequent behavior. Thanks.
Ok, and I can completely understand why you would ask yourself that question. To help in your pondering, please entertain a little thought experiment for me...
DeleteImagine you live in Rome around 70-100 AD. in perhaps, 87 AD, you receive a copy of the gospel of Mark from a friend. And then you read it, and you become convinced it is true. You have several deeply spiritual experiences after you follow Christ's teachings. And you are able to personally overcome many sins as you repent and strive to be like Him. You feel your life become purer. You upturn your whole life and you embrace the religion and the Church 100%. You sacrifice everything for your new faith.
But 10 years later you learn that Mark never ever met Jesus. Some say Mark was barely literate and made most of it up. In fact, there are more and more several other gospels (written and oral) circulating that in concrete ways contradict what you had learned from Mark's. Moreover, you befriend some devout Jews who emigrated from Jerusalem, and they begin to tell you their version of the story that they heard from their grandfathers. They tell you how Jesus blasphemed and threatened to overthrow Roman rule and for that the Romans executed him. As well, there are rumors that he and Mary Magdalene weren't merely friends, that he had children with her. And lately some of the Bishops of Rome have been oppressive in their teachings, requiring more and more sacrifice. You receive word that in Corinth, the members of the church have revolted and ousted their leaders. And you begin to think that your bishop, Clement of Rome might be equally unworthy of office.
Then you go back and read Mark and you begin to see it very differently. Your doubt deepens...
Wouldn't you feel betrayed?
But then you have to ask yourself, what was it about your initial reading of the gospel that caused you to believe? And should that feeling, that early enthusiasm be suppressed because of this new information? Even if you accept that some of the accusations against Jesus have some truth in them, does that lessen in any way His words and teachings?
The point is that history is messy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism#New_Testament_authenticity_and_the_historical_Jesus)
There are parts of religious history that trouble me. Yet it was from that history that the scriptures emerged. And the reality is that I can sit down with my scriptures and read them. I can isolate myself from all of the peripheral voices and simply read the product before me. And those words will either ring true to my soul or not.
It is in that quiet place where decisions must be made. In history, we tend to see what we want to see. 5 years ago, would your reaction to this information have been the same as today? As you can tell from this blog, each of us will tend seek information that confirm what our hearts already tell us.
When I read In Sacred Loneliness, I didn't just smile through the tears. I went to a dark place. And it ultimately turned around in another dark place: late at night, in my bedroom, on my knees. I'm not saying that this is a simple solution. It wasn't for me. It was real torment. I guess for me the blow was softened because I had already passed through a similar phase of doubts about Christ and Christianity as a teenager. Was Christ simply a good a man co-opted by zealots for their own gain? Was Joseph truly a prophet? If so, did he fall? These are not easy questions to answer. There's a bit of a price to pay.
I really am not seeking a response here. These are just my feelings of how I deal with our religious history. I hope no one wastes the time to pick apart my analogy, because that's not the point.
If fallacies come knocking at my door,
DeleteI'd rather feed, and shelter full a score,
Than hide behind the black portcullis, doubt,
And run the risk of barring one Truth out.
And if pretension for a time deceive,
And prove me one too ready to believe,
Far less my shame, than if by stubborn act,
I brand as lie, some great colossal Fact.
Credulity, by Ella Wheeler Wilcox
"Just to throw a little perspective in here", non-LDS Christians do not "follow" Martin Luther. They do not claim that he is the only one who speaks directly to God on their behalf. They do not say you have to believe in Luther in order to accept the true Gospel and live with God. Nobody claims that if Luther didn't come around, the true Gospel would not have been restored to the earth.
ReplyDeleteI have not researched the quote you gave on Luther, to see if it is legitimate or not, but even if it was (??), it would have no effect whatsoever on my relationship with God. I do not have to beileve what any pastor or leader or prophet has to say, only in Christ.
No Non-LDS Christians would never say that there are not things in the Non-LDS Christian past that were wrong. There is in every past. Most would admit that, and openly talk about them. The difference shown in this discussion is obvious. Lds do not like to talk about certain things in their history, even get combative/defensive if they do. And I understand that it is no longer practiced (physically), but it is part of your history. Why not say, yes it happend, probably not the smartest thing, but it happend?
I think the point of the quote by Luther was to show historical and social context, not necessarily to suggest that all Protestants and other Christians should believe what Luther preached. Many of the thoughts (of myself at least) are not to get someone to believe one way or another, but to make sure that perspective and context are understood. I don't need to defend anyone or anything. What I am saying is that we better understand history and context before we put limits on this or that based on modern social constructs. Heaven forbid we should put limits on God, or tell him what he can and can't do based on what we think. I like this blog because Travis has framed the discussion on "Search, Ponder, Pray, Repeat". We should seek the Lord and his ways with real intent, ponder them in our hearts and minds, and pray, not just once but continually. This is a life long journey. However, let's remember this from Isaiah 55 (emphasis on vv. 8-9), 8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
Delete9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
We should seek His thoughts and ways, not our own based on modern social constructs.
Ok, I don't want to start another thread here, but I believe that this is a fundamental error in the whole of Protestantism. You claim that you have received the Gospel, but that no protestant (or Christians, as you say) believes in any teachings of men, pastors, or prophets, but only Christ. But did Christ write the gospels? No, it was written by apostles of the Church. So, you must admit that at least in regards to the writers of the bible, you believe the words and teachings of men, about Christ. Some Protestants call this, "Sola Scriptura." Only the scriptures teach the truth.
DeleteBut I don't see how you can separate the scripture and the Church. Just think of it: Jesus didn't write the bible. He created the Church. And then the Church created the scriptures. Why does the bible contain the books that it does? Because the Church made it that way. It's illogical to condemn the imperfections of men but praise the absolute perfection of their writings. If the bible is perfect, then is not the Church (consisting of and administered by imperfect men), its creator and Christ's creation, also perfect?
Now, in another discussion we could talk about why I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS was created by Christ, but let's just assume that it was. And to get back to polygamy, I won't say that it was "not the smartest thing" because it was the policy of His Church.
It's also very unwise to throw away Martin Luther. Your entire conception of Jesus was shaped by him. If you believe that a man only needs the Bible and not authority from some Church to know God, you got that from Luther. If you are a Protestant or "Non-Denominational" Christian, most likely all the entirety of your concepts of Grace, Christ, etc are all derived from the thoughts of Protestant Reformers. Sure you don't call them apostles, but if you trace the origins of the ideas that are in your head, the Good News you received was filtered through the Protestant tradition.
I won't be long in this reply, but I feel like I have to address a few things here. Adam I will not speak for other Non-LDS christians here (But I have yet to meet anyone who believes otherwise, and I have attended many churches) but I do not believe that the Bible was written by man. I believe the Bible was inspired & written by God, through man. (The word of God) Therefore when I am following what the Bible teaches, I am following what God has told us to do. "The perfection of their writing" was acheived because God is the author of the Bible. I know this will bring up much protest about the bible being "translated" incorrectly in spots, but that is not my view point. My view point is that God is All Powerful. And I trust God in that. Meaning I trust him to do something about it if something was being done to change a book that He wrote. (Again, I know this is a different viewpoint) God gave us that book to use to live our lives to bring Glory to God.
DeleteSo because of this viewpoint, it is not "illogical to condemn the imperfections of men but praise the absolute perfection of their writings," for God wrote the Bible. I will not get into the "mistransalations", only to say I was also taught the bible was "mistranslated," but upon doing research I was able to find that we have gotten relatively close (date wise)to the originals, and have found nothing that changes at all what the bible says. But I will not get into that right now.
It was not said that people should throw away Luther. I never said that no Christian has ever gotten ideas from Luther. I said they don't have to beileve what he said to be "saved"
No Christian I have ever known has put Luther in their testimony's. No church I have ever attended (Christian) has ever said if I couldn't believe what Luther said, I couldn't be baptized or "saved".
Respectively, I have never met you, so for you to asume that my relationship with Christ is derived from Luther and not from Christ himself or directly from the Bible, is insulting. Because of my past, I go directly to the Bible to make sure everything that is getting taught to me, matches up with what God has said in the Bible.
Why do you "believe the Bible was inspired & written by God, through man." Did you witness the process? Or does simply reading the bible inspire this belief? Do you feel that the Holy Ghost or God Himself has told you this directly in some way or other?
DeleteIncidentally, I believe the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenenats, and Pearl of Great Price were inspired & written by God, through man. I believe it for the simple reason that I have read them all completely, thought long and hard about them, and then I asked God directly on several different occasions if they are true. And time after time, sometimes very directly and undeniably, I have been told that they are.
Now, I'm not gonna say that you must feel like I do about those other 3 books. But I would ask you to consider how you came to your conviction of the bible and compare it to mine. Would you at least admit that the process of how we come to know truth is similar? If not, please tell me how they are different.
I also, will admit to reading all four books completly more than one time. (Bible, BOM, D&C, PoGP) I however got the conviction that the Bible is true. I came to my conviction not only through prayer, but through searching, something that I believe is not done enough. I looked at archeological evidence, of which there has been overwhelming evidence for the Bible. Artifacts, tombs, geographical evidence. Along with many manuscripts that have been found, that in some cases get us back to under thirty years from the time the books were written. These manuscripts have been found all over the world. We seem to be getting more and more new evidence found supporting the Bible by the year. Tower of Babel, I believe I heard something in regards to Noah's ark as well recently.
DeleteIn contrast, compared to the Bible, we find little to no artifacts, archeological evidence, or geographical evidence, to support the BOM. And since we have no manuscripts/plates to find because they were taken by an angel, again we cannot compare those. I do not claim that you should not pray about which scriptures to believe, but I do believe that the heart can be "a deceitful liar" and we should be aware of "deceiving spirits" and need to look at all evidence and support, and really "ponder" our decision.
So to answer your questions, no I did not get my testimony simply by reading the bible. I got my testimony from praying, yes, but also searching, looking at all evidence that eithier does or does not back these books up. I would also add, I did read your books multiple times, and got the answer that they conflict with the Bible teachings and are wrong. This is just another reason to not rely only on feelings (You and I asked the same question and got different answers.)
I understand you are stating that you believe your three books were inspired written by God through man. I would only ask respectivley, why is it you believe God could not protect the Bible from being corrupted by man, but He could keep your books from being corrupted by man?
In my search, I found my testimony in the Bible. And once I found my testimony in the Bible, and in God, I had something to compare all other beliefs to. Respectively, in my opinion, I do not believe you can find a testimony of the Bible being from God, and also the BOM, PoGP, D&C (Mormon Beliefs). They just contradict too often to believe fully in both. You have to make a choice of one or the other, or believe one has errors.
I have to agree with the point about following anyone but Christ. Everyone else is vulnerable to error and sin, Christ is not. Martin Luther and any other person is flawed and we can't follow their doctrine or teaching. Nobody except Christ is worthy of us following (or giving praise, or singing worship songs about). My point on the contradictions between BoM Jacob & D&C is simply, there is a contradiction no matter how you try to explain it away. David was in sin with Bathseba, it is clear (biblically). I find it very convenient that some leader from LDS has found a way to explain away the contradiction. Yes, every religious organization has flaws in the past, even religious group leaders have flaws in their past. The difference is that non of them claim to have a direct link and communicate with God, or that they are being instructed to break commandments by God. The main point is the polyandry, that is adultery plain and simple. if a woman is married to another man and she marries JS at the same time that is adultery, no exceptions. The question is do you really believe God instructed JS to commit adultery. If you do, that is your right to believe that. I don't, God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes, therefore would not contradict himself. Most people above have admitted this was a mistake. If you agree it was a mistake, you must also admit that God made a mistake by commanding JS to practice this principal. I pray you will see the conflict in this.
ReplyDeleteIt was clearly not adultery. You have to understand the theology to get an idea of why it happened...
DeleteNow, I'm not trying to convince you all of anything here, but I want you to try to get into the minds of these early Saints: Joseph Smith received a revelation that we call D&C 132. In it it talks about celestial marriage and how to reach the highest level in heaven, one must be married to another faithful Saint in Christ's Church. That was the doctrine received. Now, the practice or implementation of the doctrine is another issue. Some women were not legally married to men who were LDS. And they believed that when they died their marriages would not be in effect:
"All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and dsealed by the Holy Spirit of promise...are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead." D&C 132:7
So, these women were willingly sealed to a worthy man, Joseph Smith, so that they could feel like they would earn a heavenly reward. These women continued to live and have sex only with their "earthly" husbands, but had the hope that in heaven they wouldn't miss anything. Nowadays, we practice it differently. We are a little more patient. Most likely, a woman in this situation would be posthumously sealed to her husband who would be posthumously baptized into the Church. The hope would be that the husband would accept the gospel in the spirit world.
This is why I say it is important that we get into the minds of these people before we make a judgement. We cannot ask what we would do without knowing who these people were and what they believed.
I just finally noticed that you hyperlinked the words "Social scientists" in your original post. I clicked there which took me to wivesofjosephsmith.org. They show a graph saying that social scientists can use data that begins in 1890 to show (magically) the average marriage age in 1840, and (according to the graph) well into the 1700s.
ReplyDeleteScientists are not wizards. That extrapolation is completely baseless. Look at the line from about 1790-1900. See how the slope is constant? They basically took the ten year period of 1890(when the data actually began to be collected) to 1900 and assumed that that slope had remained constant for the previous 100 years. But notice how the actual data caused the slope of the line to change drastically during the 20th century. Suppose we were to continue that current slope into the future. Do you think in 2050 the average age will be 50?
We have to use contemporary sources (like journals an literature) because there is no census data available. Social scientist wizardry doesn't count. "Science" does not equal truth. Good science does, but not this garbage.
Adam,
DeleteI'm a bit confused. In a response above to Anon, dated February 23, you give a detailed response showing how little changed on many aspects of life before 1850, going as far back as the Romans. You in essence are claiming the flat line that is graphed by these social scientists. You are extrapolating the same conclusion from data and, from what I see, agree with their conclusion.
Average age of marriage is 50 in 2050? Come on, Adam. You are just being condescending. The Social Scientists are working with the same data you are and are simply putting it in a graph form. I think you and the graph actually agree and make good sense.
Well, I do think they fudged the pre-1890 part of the graph. The data in the Census source table only cover from 1890-2003. For all we know, the average marriage age was as high as 28 during this time. There is no good data to show what it was. We are forced to use weaker sources like literature and journals.
DeleteFirst,
ReplyDeleteTravis-I just want to give you proper respect for what you do on this blog. It's brave and honest and humble. People can argue over your stated reasons, their assumptions of your research, and just run with their own misunderstanding of what you are trying to say and do here, but that just makes it even more impressive what you are willing to it. I have never even heard of an LDS member trying something like this. I commend your honesty, which is vulnerability, which is bravery, which is really faith in the God that Is. Mad props.
I hope your family and friends, at least, are being charitable to you and your efforts here. My wife and I are praying for you and your family. May God bless you and yours, in Jesus the Christ's name. Amen.
Second,
ReplyDeleteThere is so much to say. I'll start with what might be the worst place, but I still think its clear - scripture.
1) The DnC 132 revelation:
-If spiritual wifery (132) was just for the after-life (dynasty, sealing only), why did Joseph Smith hide it for so long? Why did he lie about it to everyone (members and outsiders) his entire life? Because it would be misunderstood? receive scorn/violence? What's more likely- that a prophet of God would act in so much fear and lack of faith or that a man was just trying to get away with something?
-Joseph Smith didn't fulfill much of anything required by DnC 132. v.61 calls for the first wife to give consent - there is no record I am aware of that shows that Emma ever did-but plenty that shows that she was never asked and when and what she knew she was vehemently against (she did, afterall, deny Joseph's polygamy after his death). The second wife/s is/are to be virgins and "belongeth... to no one else." The polyandry violates both.
v.63 reinforces the violations of polyandry from the other side (after pluralmarriage, relating to other (the original) man/husband is prohibited). Also v. 63 gives the reason for polygamy - NOT A TEST, NOT ECONOMIC, NOT CHARITY- "for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish". This (along with the fact that all the other polygamous marriages of everyone besides Joseph were conjugal) proves that either Joseph fulfilled this part of polygamy-and at least had sex, if not successfully procreated with his wives. Or else he violated the whole point of polygamy.
v.64 was never fulfilled by Emma-she never consented/accepted The Principle- nor by God (apparently) because she was never destroyed. The fact that she died long after Joseph did amplifies the disconnect here.
v.65 was about the only thing fulfilled by Joseph, but it defies all the rest of the revelation (you must get consent, but if she doesn't, then I'll destroy her, and either way you can just go ahead and have those wives).
Also, lots of the justification "from the Bible" actually comes from this revelation-as already referenced in some comments above. So if the revelation was bogus, then the interpretation or claims about the Bible in the revelation would be bogus as well. Since the revelation is in question, these verses (and their view of the Bible) should not be used to justify it.
I'm sure there's more to say about 132, but this is good for now.
As one who entered the church from the "back door" so to speak (having spent years reading anti-propaganda before ever cracking open the Book of Mormon - which, btw, changed everything), I'd like to say:
ReplyDelete1. I think your concerns are, for the most part, very fair. Polygamy is certainly glossed over in the church a lot and it does us a disservice to do this, because of how it shakes people up when they do find out more details. In our family we teach our kids about it so they won't be shocked later.
2. Followers of any organization (in politics especially) are generally very quick to see the mitigating circumstance and 'big picture' of their own heroes' flaws and accusations made against them. (Would that we all were so intent on finding the truth instead of blindly swallowing misinformation about those we dislike.) SO also with defenders of Joseph Smith, as we can see here. But this is not politics. Which brings be to my concluding thought:
3. I have read the Book of Mormon. And I know you have too, Travis, and I respect that your journey is different than mine and you must act according to your conscience.
But I want to echo/paraphrase the words of Joseph Smith: "I know that God knows that I know." Because in order to discredit Joseph Smith, from my perspective, you have to do more than just dig up suspicious polygamy practices. We have to also disprove the miracles, priesthood blessings, prophecies, revelations, confirmations, experiences - particularly those in the Temple - that I have had. This is certainly not the place to share those, but suffice it to say that in my 15 years as a member I have experienced things every bit as miraculous as those discussed in the scriptures and at at general conference. To say nothing of the testimonies of our modern day prophets, our leaders, and the incredible fruit that has come out of this church, and the millions of testimonies burning in the individual members' hearts.
This explains why those of us who have our testimonies solidly founded not just in a warm feeling in our bosom when we read the Book of Mormon, but in the recurring reassurance that this is not some fantasy, that this is as real as the heart beat in my chest, we do tend to immediately wonder about the missing details when confronted by these sorts of statements about Joseph Smith that so fully seem to condemn his character.
So, god speed in your journey, brother. But if I may be so bold, I'd like to suggest that you don't make too long a detour if you can help it. There is too much Temple work to be done before we die.
Best,
Victoria
Victoria,
DeleteThanks for your thoughts and encouragement. I am glad that you have found such a strong relationship with God and purpose through the LDS Church. In my interaction with others and n my participation in other worship services I find that churches are full of people just like you and I. They feel the Spirit, they love God and Jesus, and desire to serve Him. It's awesome.
I will let this take its course.
Third,
ReplyDeleteOthers above have indicated that polygamy was just for the after-life, for the sealing of generations and families together, and thus would not include sex in this life. While this simply pushes off the issue for the afterlife's activities, my immediately preceding post deals with the fact that a primary reason for it was replenishing the earth.
However, here I would like to address a short but, I find, very significant challenge to this view of polygamy (as if the replenishing wasn't enough) as only having to do with sealing generations/families/dynasties.
DnC 27:9 eludes to the future and JS History 1:39 records the fulfillment of Elijah's conferring of the keys of sealing to Joseph Smith (April 1836). However, Joseph Smith began his extra-original-wife activities with Fanny Alger BEFORE these keys were given (as early as 1833, as late as 1835 when Emma kicked her out of their home upon finding out of the relationship).
So, as others have also mentioned Joseph Smith not understanding the revelations, it would also seem that God did not give Joseph the means to properly practice spiritual marriage. This also, once again, calls into question the assertion that Joseph did not have sex with his other wives. What was he doing with Fanny Alger then?
This historical fact runs contrary to the DnC 132 revelation (that refers to the powers of priesthood-sealing). We would seem to have God commanding an activity impossible to fulfill righteously. Or do we just have a man sinning and then covering it up with worse sins? More on those "worse sins" later.
Though section 132 was received later, he received the principle of plural marriage while working on his translation of the bible from 1830-1833.
DeleteEven though the sealing power was not yet conferred, Joseph had been told that polygamy would be practiced, according to some, during that time of translating the bible. It is clear that he married Fanny, but this is before sealings began.
I never contended that all of his marriages were without physical sex, because assuredly some were. But in the accusations of polyandry, there is evidence of a sealing performed and virtually nothing thereafter. As well, there were elderly single women who were also sealed to him with no record of any physical relationship.
Lastly, for scripture
ReplyDeleteThis is the least efficient and probably the most likely for others to attempt to refute, but the verses in Jacob 2 do not support polygamy. "For if I will...raise up seed unto me, I will command my people" is not enough in itself to say "I will command polygamy if I want them to reproduce more, faster.", let alone overcome all the other ways that polygamy is denounced in the surrounding verses.
22-"were it not that I must speak unto you concerning a grosser crime"
23-"the word of God burdens me b/c of your grosser crimes... .They understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredomes, b/c of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son."
24-"David & Solomon truly had many wives & concubines, WHICH THING was abominable before me, saith the Lord." (note-not the self-giving, just the having.)
26-"Wherefore, I ... not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old." (refering to David/Solomon)
27-"Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;"
Before you say, again, that it was just the lack of God's command that made polygamy wrong here...
28-"For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women." He doesn't say "I delight that men only do as I tell them."
28contd.-"And whoredoms are an abomination before me;". He is refering to the immediate topic - polygamy.
Polygamy "without authorization" is not mentioned anywhere in this entire chapter.
30-"For if I will...raise up seed...I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." The closest he gets to saying that polygamy is an option is "otherwise...hearken unto these things." But this is vague. The context overwhelmingly supports the interpretation that he means he will command them ANOTHER WAY BESIDES THIS WHOREDOM ABOMINATION to raise up seed. The Bible's verse about God being able to make descendants of Abraham out of the rocks comes to mind. And in case one should miss the context it continues...
31-"For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people...b/c of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands." Are the daughters sorrowing and mourning that their husbands are doing something that is just fine if given permission, but they didn't, or because they are committing adultery b/c of the very nature of the abomination of polygamy?
There are more small parts, but to underscore that its not the doing of something without God's command but a betrayal of their wives, Jacob 2 ends with:
35-"Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives..." Are their hearts broken every time their husbands do something w/o permission from God - aka sin? or from a particular betrayal of the heart?
That's good enough from scriptures.
I'll post later about the reality of polygamy's "replenishing" power and other realities of Joseph Smith's polygamy.
Thank you Spartacus, I have been away and not able to get back to the blog, but you took the words out of my mouth. The passages in Jacob are far too clear to glance over and say that they don't prohibit polygamy. And as Adam admits, many of the polygamous wives were sexual then adultery has happened. Adam, where are you getting your sources about the polyandry being non-sexual, I am sure for everyone you find there are others that say otherwise.
ReplyDeleteVictoria, I appreciate your encouragement of Travis, he certainly deserves it. I am always shocked that people of the LDS faith take such harsh attacks of their own members when they ask questions. On a second note, you ask for Travis to not stray too long because "there is too much temple work to be done before we die". Statements like this from LDS members always lead me to ask, what work can you do that God is incapable of doing. I believe God to be a soverign God who is not limited by anything, He is the infinite creator of everything and needs nothing from us. If we have to do work on his behalf, does that not the same as saying God is insufficient or at the very least incapable?