Bishop's Resignation Letter

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Bishop's Resignation Letter

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

why me wrote:
Themis wrote:
Maybe he defines hiding differently then you. Have you tried to understand this. Apparently not.


He bought into the anti claim from the exmormon site. He fell for it hook line and sinker. Not knowing something doesn't mean that the lds church hides it. It just means that one doesn't know for various of reasons. He should have attended seminary.


I don't see how there can be any debate about whether or not the Church hides embarrassing aspects of its history. This has been shown so many times and in so many ways that I don't know why apologists bother trying to argue otherwise. BKP's "The Mantel if Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect" is evidence enough all by itself that the Church hides things from the rank-and-file.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Bishop's Resignation Letter

Post by _Runtu »

I did a little experiment on lds.org, searching the following words:

fanny alger: 0 hits
sylvia lyon: 0 hits
Helen Mar Kimball: 1 hit, no mention of plural marriage
zina d.h. young: 19 hits, mentions of being Joseph's plural wife: 0
Eliza Partridge: 1 hit
Emily Partridge: 1 hit

A fairly explicit discussion in a 1979 Ensign article:

Emma Smith needed help with her newborn son, and hired first sixteen-year-old Emily, then twenty-year-old Eliza too.

Although little Don Carlos Smith died a short time later, Emily and Eliza continued to live in the Smith home, where, in the summer of 1842, both girls “were married to Bro. Joseph about the same time, but neither of us knew about the other at the time; everything was so secret” (Emily, “Incidents,” p. 186).


louisa beaman: 1 hit, as follows, from the "Church History in the Fulness of Times" manual:

Moreover, Joseph Smith and the Church were to accept the principle of plural marriage as part of the restoration of all things (see v. 45). Accustomed to conventional marriage patterns, the Prophet was at first understandably reluctant to engage in this new practice. Due to a lack of historical documentation, we do not know what his early attempts were to comply with the commandment in Ohio. His first recorded plural marriage in Nauvoo was to Louisa Beaman; it was performed by Bishop Joseph B. Noble on 5 April 1841. 12 During the next three years Joseph took additional plural wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands.


Joseph Smith Plural Marriage: 94 hits

Some representative quotes:

This is the sum total of the discussion of plural marriage in Hinckley's "Truth Restored" (the rest of the section covers the persecution it engendered):

Although polygamy is no longer practiced in the Church, no account of the Church’s history can be complete without some discussion of the practice. It was first announced by Joseph Smith at Nauvoo in 1842. Many of those close to him knew of it and accepted it as a principle of divine pronouncement. However, it was not publicly taught until 1852.

In the families that practiced polygamy, each wife, with her children, occupied a separate house, or, if the wives lived in the same house, as was sometimes the case, in separate quarters. No distinction was made between either of the wives or the children. The husband provided for each family, was responsible for the education of the children, and gave both the children and their mothers the same advantages he would have given to his family under a monogamous relationship. If it was thought he could not do this, he was not permitted to enter into plural marriage.

While the practice was extremely limited—only a small minority of the families were involved—it was the kind of thing of which enemies of the Church could easily take advantage.


A 1977 article from Davis Bitton:

Starting during Joseph Smith’s own lifetime but limited to a few dozen families until its official announcement in 1852, plural marriage brought a powerful new challenge to the equanimity of Latter-day Saint family life.


The church's main page about plural marriage says:

After God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831 and commanded him to live it, the Prophet, over a period of years, cautiously taught the doctrine to some close associates. Eventually, he and a small number of Church leaders entered into plural marriages in the early years of the Church. Those who practiced plural marriage at that time, both male and female, experienced a significant trial of their faith. The practice was so foreign to them that they needed and received personal inspiration from God to help them obey the commandment.


Liahona:

July 12 [1843]. A revelation on the “Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and Plural Marriage” (D&C 132) was recorded, giving fuller meaning to the “new and everlasting covenant” which had been mentioned as early as 1831. The Prophet had explained the doctrine to a few, and plural marriages had been performed in 1841.


Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith:

This book also does not discuss plural marriage. The doctrines and principles relating to plural marriage were revealed to Joseph Smith as early as 1831. The Prophet taught the doctrine of plural marriage, and a number of such marriages were performed during his lifetime. ...

In 1841 the first sealings of couples were performed, and in 1843 the Prophet dictated the revelation that describes the eternal nature of the marriage covenant (see D&C 132). The doctrines in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831. 21 As commanded by God, he also taught the doctrine of plural marriage.


The only mention in the Gospel Doctrine D&C manual:

The revelation to practice plural marriage in this dispensation

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they obeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood.


A D. Michael Quinn article from the Ensign in 1978 is unusually frank:

How a family accepts members who join it by marriage is, in some ways, analogous to how a Church accepts members who join it by baptism. The experiences of plural marriage make the analogy even closer. The Whitney family rose nobly to the challenge in a way that was an example to the Church. On 27 July 1842, the Prophet Joseph Smith recorded a revelation to the Whitneys on plural marriage.

“My husband revealed these things to me; we had always been united, and had the utmost faith and confidence in each other. We pondered upon them continually, and our prayers were unceasing that the Lord would grant us some special manifestation concerning this new and strange doctrine. The Lord was very merciful to us; He revealed unto us His power and glory. We were seemingly wrapt in a heavenly vision, a halo of light encircled us, and we were convinced in our own minds that God had heard and answered our prayers and intercedings before Him.” 10 In obedience to the command of the living prophet, Newel and Elizabeth Ann gave their daughter Sarah Ann in marriage to Joseph Smith. Nearly a year later, Joseph Smith dictated the general revelation about the eternity of marriage and the nature of plural marriage, and Newel asked to have his own copy, a providential request, since the first copy was destroyed. Thus, Newel’s desire to have the word of the Lord has blessed the entire Church by preserving what is now Section 132 [D&C 132] in the Doctrine and Covenants.


I could go on, but it seems to me the church was much more forthcoming back in the 1970s and since then has avoided the subject, usually preferring just to say that Joseph taught it to a select group. I am pretty sure I learned Joseph Smith was a polygamist on my mission. We didn't learn about it in seminary, and I wasn't a diligent Ensign reader before then.

If one doesn't read current church publications carefully, one might not know Joseph had more than one wife. It's a good thing we have the interwebs.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Bishop's Resignation Letter

Post by _Kishkumen »

Doctor Scratch:

There is no question that the Church has made a point of avoiding embarrassing aspects of its history. The apologists have to quibble over the basic meaning of words and dispute every interpretation because that is all they have. It is important to them to imply that the "apostate" was somehow the one at fault.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Bishop's Resignation Letter

Post by _Runtu »

Kishkumen wrote:Doctor Scratch:

There is no question that the Church has made a point of avoiding embarrassing aspects of its history. The apologists have to quibble over the basic meaning of words and dispute every interpretation because that is all they have. It is important to them to imply that the "apostate" was somehow the one at fault.


As I said, I never heard about Joseph practicing plural marriage in church or seminary; I remember at one point being taught that he married older women platonically as a kind way of supporting them. On my mission, my MP mentioned that Joseph had asked for Vilate Kimball as merely a test. I honestly don't remember when I learned that he practiced plural marriage in the usual sense, but I know I was an adult.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Madison54
_Emeritus
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:37 pm

Re: Bishop's Resignation Letter

Post by _Madison54 »

Doctor Scratch wrote:I don't see how there can be any debate about whether or not the Church hides embarrassing aspects of its history. This has been shown so many times and in so many ways that I don't know why apologists bother trying to argue otherwise. BKP's "The Mantel if Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect" is evidence enough all by itself that the Church hides things from the rank-and-file.

I agree.

Just look at how the intellectuals / scholars / BYU professors were treated in the late 1980's - early 1990's for only trying to write and discuss the true church history.

Leonard Arrington was released from his position (church historian) and his 16 volume History of the Latter-Day Saints was aborted by church leaders because it ended up being "too revealing" regarding the church's history.

Why did the church close their archives to historians once they realized what they contained (the TRUE church history)?

How anyone can say that the church doesn't go to great lengths to keep certain details (and complete topics) hidden is absurd.

How much was polygamy discussed during the two years that the RS and Priesthood lessons were devoted to Joseph Smith? If I remember correctly, polygamy was only mentioned briefly in the forward of that book with the direction not to discuss it.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: Bishop's Resignation Letter

Post by _Kishkumen »

Runtu wrote:As I said, I never heard about Joseph practicing plural marriage in church or seminary; I remember at one point being taught that he married older women platonically as a kind way of supporting them. On my mission, my MP mentioned that Joseph had asked for Vilate Kimball as merely a test. I honestly don't remember when I learned that he practiced plural marriage in the usual sense, but I know I was an adult.


And you know, why would it have been part of your world as a kid? We were kids, for Pete's sake. We trusted our parents and leaders, just as they wanted us to do. Most of us were doing normal kid stuff. If we were lucky, we read the Book of Mormon before we left on a mission. There is no shame in all of this. Frankly, if the Church wanted it any other way, they could have made it happen. But they really didn't.

I am not unsympathetic. It is really a bitch that there is so much information about early Mormonism out there, while the version that the Church promotes is effectively purged of most of the troubling bits. I think an argument can be made that in the end some of the troubling bits are not so important, but by the time a person discovers them on their own, it is a little too late to tell them that. Trust is destroyed. A testimony lost. A whole culture and way of life left by the side of life's road.

It frankly infuriates me that in the eyes of some apologists this is somehow the fault of an LDS member who did as they were told most of their lives by not digging into mysteries, reading unapproved material, and sticking to the Church's program. I guess if they had remained oblivious to it all, they might have been alright, but the internet has frankly made it too easy to wander off the approved, correlated path.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Bishop's Resignation Letter

Post by _honorentheos »

Your experience mirrors my own, Runtu. I can not say I heard anything about Joseph Smith being potentially involved in plural marriage until I first listened to the Truman Madsen series on his biography. It was very popular while I was a missionary. Yet even then I only recall the story you mentioned of Vilate and Heber Kimball being tested by "the principle".

I wonder if anyone else remembers these and what they said about Joseph Smith's involvement in plural marriage? At the time, I remember this series being the most in-depth exploration of Joseph Smith's life I had heard.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Bishop's Resignation Letter

Post by _Themis »

Runtu wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:Doctor Scratch:

There is no question that the Church has made a point of avoiding embarrassing aspects of its history. The apologists have to quibble over the basic meaning of words and dispute every interpretation because that is all they have. It is important to them to imply that the "apostate" was somehow the one at fault.


As I said, I never heard about Joseph practicing plural marriage in church or seminary; I remember at one point being taught that he married older women platonically as a kind way of supporting them. On my mission, my MP mentioned that Joseph had asked for Vilate Kimball as merely a test. I honestly don't remember when I learned that he practiced plural marriage in the usual sense, but I know I was an adult.


Avoiding may be a better word to describe what the church has done with embarrassing aspects of it's history. It's understandable why they would, even though not honest. The rare mention of them is the reason why so many do not know about most of these issues.
42
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Bishop's Resignation Letter

Post by _honorentheos »

I think this video is pretty close to what the "Prophet Joseph Smith" series also said about plural marriage. It reflects what I was first really taught about it. I also do not think it is a very accurate representation of the history.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Madison54
_Emeritus
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:37 pm

Re: Bishop's Resignation Letter

Post by _Madison54 »

Also,

They have not discussed polygamy AT ALL this year in seminary (my son is in high school and attends daily). This year, they are studying Church History and the D. & C. When it came to discussing Section 132, the teacher told them only that it was the section "relating to the new and everlasting covenant" which meant "temple marriage". Then the teacher proceeded to discuss the importance of temple sealings, etc. and never even mentioned or read the parts regarding polygamy.

So, maybe at one time polygamy was discussed in seminary....but it's not in the lesson material for this year.

Nearly all of the references given on here regarding the church materials that contain information about polygamy have been prior to 1995 or so....the church really put on a full court press after then to cover things up.
Post Reply