Newsroom responds to media attention

[_ludwigm]

No, nothing is hidden.

Both articles are now replaced with a new and broader article ...

... broader than the original ones.
Which sense is it broader in?

[_maklelan]

Both articles are now replaced with a new and broader article ...

... broader than the original ones.
Which sense is it broader in?[/quote]

It deals with plural marriage in the Church more broadly than just in Kirtland and Nauvoo. You can read it for yourself to find out precisely how broad it is.

[_Kevin Graham]

True, but they were always told it was a pack of anti-Mormon lies and must be avoided at all costs so that Satan wouldn't overpower them.

Always? I was never told that.

You're one of the lucky ones. I'm being told this as we speak, on Facebook.

Remember, LDS leaders teach that "not all history is useful" so you're really just wasting your time with this stuff, trying to fault find, etc.

[_Bazooka]

Maklelan, Boyd K. Packer doesn't seem to share your view that members should be doing research outside of direct Church materials.

Fourth caution
The final caution concerns the idea that so long as something is already in print, so long as it is available from another source, there is nothing out of order in using it in writing or speaking or teaching.
Surely you can see the fallacy in that.

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/ ... ct_eng.pdf

He goes on to, seemingly, pre-emptively chastise the future essay writers and question the decision to publish these essays:

I agree with President Stephen L Richards, who stated:
“If a man of history has secured over the years a high place in the esteem of his countrymen and fellow men and has become imbedded in their affections, it has seemingly become a pleasing pastime for researchers and scholars to delve into the past of such a man, discover, if may be, some of his weaknesses, and then write a book exposing hitherto unpublished alleged factual findings, all of which tends to rob the historic character of the idealistic esteem and veneration in which he may have been held through the years.
“This ‘debunking,’ we are told, is in the interest of realism, that the facts should be known. If a historic character has made a great contribution to country and society, and if his name and his deeds have been used over the generations to foster high ideals of character and service, what good is to be accomplished by digging out of the past and exploiting weaknesses, which perhaps a generous contemporary public forgave and subdued?” (Where Is Wisdom? [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 955], p. 55.)
That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weakness and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith—particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith—places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities.

And to reinforce the message that the Church must be selective in what it tells members and what it should keep hidden:

Teaching some things that are true, prematurely or at the wrong time, can invite sorrow and heartbreak instead of the joy intended to accompany learning.
What is true with these two subjects is, if anything, doubly true in the field of religion. The scriptures teach emphatically that we must give milk before meat. The Lord made it very clear that some things are to be taught selectively, and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy.

And we would do well to remember Packers second caution:

second caution
There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
Some things that are true are not very useful.

I'm not seeing him exhort members to be inquisitive and to go searching for information above and beyond what the Church feeds the members.

[_maklelan]

Maklelan, Boyd K. Packer doesn't seem to share your view that members should be doing research outside of direct Church materials.

And as I pointed out earlier when you appealed to this tired old canard, this is in reference to teachers teaching lessons, not to people just conducting personal study. I still disagree wholeheartedly with it, but you're misrepresenting it all the same. If the point of this whole post is to point out that BKP advocated for the selective release and study of historical material, you're preaching to the choir. I'm well aware of it and I disagree with it. So does most everyone I know. I can't imagine many people who don't know about Joseph Smith's polygamy have read this speech. After all, it was given to religious educators at a CES symposium. These weren't the kind of people who sit quietly in Gospel Doctrine and never look anything up on their own.

[_Chap]

Both articles are now replaced with a new and broader article ...

... broader than the original ones.
Which sense is it broader in?

It deals with plural marriage in the Church more broadly than just in Kirtland and Nauvoo. You can read it for yourself to find out precisely how broad it is.

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marri ... s?lang=eng

It is broader in the sense that it does not say that Joseph Smith had "between 30 and 40 " wives. It does not mention that "Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married." It does not mention that "The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball... who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday." You know, all the stuff that has been in the papers, the blogs, the discussion groups and the TV?

To find that you have to go a level deeper.

No-one would ever think, of course, that this rearrangement only a short time after the original essays appeared had anything to do with the unfortunate publicity caused by making the original two essays directly available. Nor could it be a slightly desperate stratagem to reconcile the conflicting aims of shielding members from unsettling information on the church's own website, and avoiding the embarrassment that would come from simply deleting the two essays altogether.

Could it be that somebody in the COB had to dream this rather shaky plan up to keep his job? Naah. Maklekan will soon tell us that he knows for a fact that didn't happen.

Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Latter-day Saints believe that the marriage of one man and one woman is the Lord’s standing law of marriage. In biblical times, the Lord commanded some to practice plural marriage—the marriage of one man and more than one woman.1 By revelation, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to institute the practice of plural marriage among Church members in the early 1840s. For more than half a century, plural marriage was practiced by some Latter-day Saints under the direction of the Church President.2

Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes in instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord].”3

Plural marriage did result in the birth of large numbers of children within faithful Latter-day Saint homes. It also shaped 19th-century Mormon society in many ways: marriage became available to virtually all who desired it; per-capita inequality of wealth was diminished as economically disadvantaged women married into more financially stable households; and ethnic intermarriages were increased, which helped to unite a diverse immigrant population. Plural marriage also helped create and strengthen a sense of cohesion and group identification among Latter-day Saints. Church members came to see themselves as a “peculiar people,” covenant-bound to carry out the commands of God despite outside opposition.4
The Beginnings of Plural Marriage in the Church

Polygamy had been permitted for millennia in many cultures and religions, but, with few exceptions, it was rejected in Western cultures. In Joseph Smith’s time, monogamy was the only legal form of marriage in the United States.

The revelation on plural marriage, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 132, emerged partly from Joseph Smith’s study of the Old Testament in 1831. Latter-day Saints understood that they were living in the latter days, in what the revelations called the “dispensation of the fulness of times.”5 Ancient principles—such as prophets, priesthood, and temples—would be restored to the earth. Plural marriage, practiced by ancient patriarchs like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, was one of those ancient principles.6

The same revelation that taught of plural marriage was embedded within a revelation about eternal marriage—the teaching that marriage could last beyond death. Monogamous and plural marriages performed by priesthood power could seal loved ones to each other for eternity, on condition of righteousness.7

The revelation on marriage stated general principles; it did not explain how to implement plural marriage in all its particulars. In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith married additional wives and authorized other Latter-day Saints to practice plural marriage. The practice was introduced carefully and incrementally, and participants vowed to keep their participation confidential, anticipating a time when husbands and wives could acknowledge one another publicly.

If you would like to learn more about the beginnings of plural marriage in the Church, click here.
Plural Marriage and Families in 19th-Century Utah

Between 1852 and 1890, Latter-day Saints openly practiced plural marriage. Most plural families lived in Utah. Women and men who lived within plural marriage attested to challenges and difficulties but also to the love and joy they found within their families. They believed it was a commandment of God at that time and that obedience would bring great blessings to them and their posterity. Church leaders taught that participants in plural marriages should seek to develop a generous spirit of unselfishness and the pure love of Christ for everyone involved.

Although some leaders had large polygamous families, two-thirds of polygamist men had only two wives at a time. Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages; remarriage was also readily available. Women sometimes married at young ages in the first decade of Utah settlement, which was typical of women living in frontier areas at the time. At its peak in 1857, perhaps one half of all Utah Latter-day Saints experienced plural marriage as a husband, wife, or child. The percentage of those involved in plural marriage steadily declined over the next three decades.

During the years that plural marriage was publicly taught, not all Latter-day Saints were expected to live the principle, though all were expected to accept it as a revelation from God. Indeed, this system of marriage could not have been universal due to the ratio of men to women. Women were free to choose their spouses, whether to enter into a polygamous or a monogamous union, or whether to marry at all. Some men entered plural marriage because they were asked to do so by Church leaders, while others initiated the process themselves; all were required to obtain the approval of Church leaders before entering a plural marriage.

If you would like to learn more about plural marriage and families in Utah, click here.
Anti-polygamy Legislation and the End of Plural Marriage

Beginning in 1862, the U.S. government passed laws against the practice of plural marriage. After the U.S. Supreme Court found the anti-polygamy laws to be constitutional in 1879, federal officials began prosecuting polygamous husbands and wives during the 1880s. Believing these laws to be unjust, Latter-day Saints engaged in civil disobedience by continuing to practice plural marriage and by attempting to avoid arrest by moving to the homes of friends or family or by hiding under assumed names. When convicted, they paid fines and submitted to jail time.

One of the anti-polygamy laws permitted the U.S. government to seize Church property. Federal officers soon threatened to take Latter-day Saint temples. The work of salvation for both the living and the dead was now in jeopardy. In September 1890, Church President Wilford Woodruff felt inspired to issue the Manifesto. “Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages,” President Woodruff explained, “I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.”8

The full implications of the document were not apparent at first. The Lord’s way is to speak “line upon line; here a little, there a little.”9 Like the beginning of plural marriage in the Church, the end of the practice was gradual and incremental, a process filled with difficulties and uncertainties.

The Manifesto declared President Woodruff’s intention to submit to the laws of the United States, and new plural marriages within that jurisdiction largely came to an end. But a small number of plural marriages continued to be performed in Mexico and Canada, under the sanction of some Church leaders. As a rule, these marriages were not promoted by Church leaders and were difficult to get approved. Either one or both of the spouses who entered into these unions typically had to agree to remain in Canada or Mexico. On an exceptional basis, a smaller number of plural marriages were performed within the United States between the years 1890 and 1904.

The Church’s role in these marriages became a subject of intense public debate after Reed Smoot, an Apostle, was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1903. At the April 1904 general conference, Church President Joseph F. Smith issued a forceful statement, known as the Second Manifesto, making new plural marriages punishable by excommunication.10 Since President Smith’s day, Church Presidents have repeatedly emphasized that the Church and its members are no longer authorized to enter into plural marriage and have underscored the sincerity of their words by urging local leaders to bring noncompliant members before Church disciplinary councils.

If you would like to learn more about the end of plural marriage in the Church, click here.
Conclusion

Plural marriage was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration. For many who practiced it, plural marriage was a trial of faith. It violated both cultural and legal norms, leading to persecution and revilement. Despite these hardships, plural marriage benefited the Church in innumerable ways. Through the lineage of these 19th-century Saints have come many Latter-day Saints who have been faithful to their gospel covenants as righteous mothers and fathers; loyal disciples of Jesus Christ; devoted Church members, leaders, and missionaries; and good citizens and prominent public officials. Modern Latter-day Saints honor and respect these faithful pioneers who gave so much for their faith, families, and community.

Resources

Doctrine and Covenants 132:34–38; Jacob 2:30; see also Genesis 16.
Doctrine and Covenants 132:7. The Church President periodically set apart others to perform plural marriages.
Jacob 2:30.
1 Peter 2:9; see also Jacob 1:8; Acts 5:41.
Doctrine and Covenants 112:30; 124:41; 128:18.
See Doctrine and Covenants 132:1, 34–38.
Doctrine and Covenants 132:7; 131:2–3.
Official Declaration 1; “Official Declaration,” Deseret Evening News, Sept. 25, 1890.
Isaiah 28:10, 13; see also 2 Nephi 28:30; Doctrine and Covenants 98:12.
“Official Statement by President Joseph F. Smith,” Deseret Evening News, Apr. 6, 1904, 1.

The Church acknowledges the contribution of scholars to the historical content presented in this article; their work is used with permission.

[_maklelan]

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marri ... s?lang=eng

It is broader in the sense that it does not say that Joseph Smith had "between 30 and 40 " wives. It does not mention that "Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married." It does not mention that "The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball... who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday." You know, all the stuff that has been in the papers, the blogs, the discussion groups and the TV?

To find that you have to go a level deeper.

Or click on the link directly to the article that is in the lead story on the Church's public newsroom page. Of course, one would have to be a veritable Sherlock Holmes to find their way to the precise number of wives Joseph Smith had, which is obviously the most important thing that could ever be stated about plural marriage in the Church:

The revelation on marriage stated general principles; it did not explain how to implement plural marriage in all its particulars. In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith married additional wives and authorized other Latter-day Saints to practice plural marriage. The practice was introduced carefully and incrementally, and participants vowed to keep their participation confidential, anticipating a time when husbands and wives could acknowledge one another publicly.

If you would like to learn more about the beginnings of plural marriage in the Church, click here.

How underhanded and deceptive.

No-one would ever think, of course, that this rearrangement only a short time after the original essays appeared had anything to do with the unfortunate publicity caused by making the original two essays directly available. Nor could it be a slightly desperate stratagem to reconcile the conflicting aims of shielding members from unsettling information on the church's own website, and avoiding the embarrassment that would come from simply deleting the two essays altogether.

Could it be that somebody in the COB had to dream this rather shaky plan up to keep his job? Naah. Maklekan will soon tell us that he knows for a fact that didn't happen.

And you will all suggest that because it fits more comfortably into your worldview, you prefer to accept your assumption over my direct information.

[_Bazooka]

Maklelan, Boyd K. Packer doesn't seem to share your view that members should be doing research outside of direct Church materials.

And as I pointed out earlier when you appealed to this tired old canard, this is in reference to teachers teaching lessons, not to people just conducting personal study. I still disagree wholeheartedly with it, but you're misrepresenting it all the same. If the point of this whole post is to point out that BKP advocated for the selective release and study of historical material, you're preaching to the choir. I'm well aware of it and I disagree with it. So does most everyone I know. I can't imagine many people who don't know about Joseph Smith's polygamy have read this speech. After all, it was given to religious educators at a CES symposium. These weren't the kind of people who sit quietly in Gospel Doctrine and never look anything up on their own.

You may not know this but, does Elder Packer still think this way?

[_maklelan]

You may not know this but, does Elder Packer still think this way?

Don't know. I've not seen him bring it up in quite some time. Surely you can conjure up a firm conclusion about it, though.

[_Kevin Graham]

I don't think you have much of a case here Mak. Sure, BKP said that in a certain context, but why should we assume he would have given a completely opposite counsel to the general membership? At least this example gives us some insight into the psyche of LDS leadership when it comes to dealing with uncomfortable historical truths. After all, just look at the Church's history of excommunicating scholars, and even discouraging Mormon scholars from studying certain topics. Don't believe me, then just ask David Bokovoy who knows from first hand experience that people have been instructed not to get into biblical studies because it could lead to apostasy. This is why Religious "education" is what they have at BYU, not Religious "studies." It isn't about letting scholars use the tools they've learned to advance understanding in the field, it is about relaying what the LDS leadership says because they're the only ones who matter when it comes to understanding what the scriptures really say.

And while you're at it, ask David to tell you the details of his various interrogations he had to endure when he applied for a position at BYU. Muhlestein and company were less interested in his far superior qualifications, and much more interested in his friendships with known apostates. Ultimately they gave the job to a guy who had not even half of David's experience and qualifications. Why? Because he was a safe hire. He wasn't particularly friendly towards former members.

Why do you think associating with people who "know things" most Mormons don't, can mean risking your temple recommend? Or do they no longer ask that question in the interviews?

And why do all these "anti-Mormon" books exist at the BYU library, only in a special section? Or is that no longer true?