NY Times Article on Dissaffected Swedish Area Authority

[Moliere]

I'm trying to remember where I thought the idea of polygamy started, but I think I just assumed it was Brigham Young. Really, I probably just didn't like to think about it. Which is why the church should drop the Joseph Smith polygamy bomb at an age when people really don't think about things, at least if they want to minimize its impact.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I learned about it within the first six months of my mission. One of the elders in that apartment was struggling with it so I naturally found out about it from him and his companion.

My oldest son already knows about JS's polygamy. He thinks it's weird and I told him I agree. He asked why JS did that and I responded that I have no idea other than he felt God wanted him to do it. I then told him that I don't agree with it but I accept JS as a flawed man and prophet, much like all the other prophets in the OT as well as the leaders in the NT.

Chances are that the rising generation will be more informed and better equipped to deal with this stuff if they can hold on through the transition process.

[Jarid in Cedar]

If I get to choose the moment of my death, i want it to be a nanosecond after IndyCoug. I want to view firsthand to mixture of disbelief and disgust that roll across his face as St. Peter tell him repeatedly that SeattleUte was basically right.

[MarkGrace]

If I get to choose the moment of my death, i want it to be a nanosecond after IndyCoug. I want to view firsthand to mixture of disbelief and disgust that roll across his face as St. Peter tell him repeatedly that SeattleUte was basically right.

If SU is right St. Peter won't even be there and you won't get to watch Indy do anything. All it will mean is your body goes cold a nansecond after Indy's.

[Indy Coug]

If SU is right St. Peter won't even be there and you won't get to watch Indy do anything. All it will mean is your body goes cold a nansecond after Indy's.

[Paperback Writer]

I'm a 5th gen Mormon, served a mission, and had only heard Joseph may have had some "spiritual wives". Most everything I'd heard about Joseph and polygamy was chalked up to "anti-Mormon" sources. I learned the truth when I read Compton's book, which had been summarized in the local paper. I couldn't wrap my head around polyandry and so, felt I had to research it for myself. Where were mainstream Mormons learning the warty truth about these things before 1998 when Compton released "In Sacred Loneliness"? Was there even one source that wasn't considered "anti-Mormon" before that book came out? It's not surprising to me at all that a European Area Authority didn't have a clue about such things. I think a lot of folks around here either stretch the truth about how long they've known, or genuinely don't recall.

I'm a close match to your profile. I think the key word is "anit-Mormon". That term is used to dispell outright falsehoods as well as historical facts. And that's a big problem with the many LDS. A balanced article that contains legitimate criticisms is often looked at as "anti-Moromon" because it is not necessarily "faith promating". Much of this material was available pre-internet via Sunstone, books (No Man knows...), and other material. But those sources would have been considered anti-Mormon by many. My mother was what now would be considered a "progressive Mormon" and that's how I learned about this material as a teenager. That led to some interesting interactions with some companions in the mission field who were convinced that JS did not proactice polygamy and the BOM was completly translated via the U&T. Not to mention other topics like BOM geography, the priesthood ban, etc. Because of these disputes, it came to the attention of my MP who gave me some great advice which I have used in my own family. Basically, facts or truth speak for themselves but also need to be understood in context. And should be discussed when people are "ready" for them and interested in having the conversation.

[MarkGrace]

I think I know more about BY's polygamy from state history than anything else. Field trips to the Beehive House and all that as a kid.

[Uncle Ted]

'Implies' is a strong word:



And that's it for his involvement in it.

OK, how about the Encyclopedia of Mormonism?

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Plural_Marriage

This article even mentions Fanny Alger, which interesting happened before Elijah showed up in 1836 to restore the sealing keys. I am not sure how this polygamy sealing stuff works without that but maybe it will be fixed all up in the end like all the other messy details.

[Northwestcoug]

OK, how about the Encyclopedia of Mormonism?

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Plural_Marriage

This article even mentions Fanny Alger, which interesting happened before Elijah showed up in 1836 to restore the sealing keys. I am not sure how this polygamy sealing stuff works without that but maybe it will be fixed all up in the end like all the other messy details.

That's certainly better than the official church publication. But I'll still nitpick. When it talks about that the majority of polygamous marriages involved 2-3 wives, it says larger families were the exception. They include BY and Heber Kimball as the exceptions. Why not JS? He certainly was part of that group with larger families.

[Pelado]

I'm trying to remember where I thought the idea of polygamy started, but I think I just assumed it was Brigham Young. Really, I probably just didn't like to think about it. Which is why the church should drop the Joseph Smith polygamy bomb at an age when people really don't think about things, at least if they want to minimize its impact.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

I remember learning that Joseph Smith received the revelation about polygamy, and that he had relayed to certain others that they were to practice it (Brigham at least). I don't remember being taught that Joseph himself took multiple wives. And I certainly was never taught about the polyandry. I don't think I knew about the polyandry until I started hanging out with all you rubble rousers.

[Indy Coug]

That's certainly better than the official church publication. But I'll still nitpick. When it talks about that the majority of polygamous marriages involved 2-3 wives, it says larger families were the exception. They include BY and Heber Kimball as the exceptions. Why not JS? He certainly was part of that group with larger families.

Because by that point they had progressed in the narrative past the time of Joseph Smith and were talking about what the norms were when the practice became fairly widespread and public.

[Harry Tic]

I think I know more about BY's polygamy from state history than anything else. Field trips to the Beehive House and all that as a kid.

Okay, now you're just messing with my mind. There is no freaking way that BY would have been a polygamist and THEN get a university named after him.

I'm sympathetic to people that struggle with JS's shortcomings, and I believe they should be heard and respected and not dismissed out of hand. I understand if they see this or that issue as a dealbreaker. It's not unreasonable to look at some of JS's dalliances and conclude that he wasn't what he said he was. It may even be, for some, the only truly courageous and moral thing to do. I'll let God make the call on that one.

That said, I am a believer but I really take seriously the claim that not everything a prophet does is inspired. For me this includes, polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, blood atonement, and many other things besides. Mistakes, all of them.

I'm comfortable with saying JS was inspired about some things, not inspired about others, and often incapable of seeing the difference himself. I can live with that. But I see no need to reinforce his errors by pretending that they were divinely sanctioned.

[Pheidippides]

The church, I think, is starting to realize that people like me will never be satisfied with any answer they can give. We have no faith in the leadership to even know what is going on, and we don't start from a fundamental assumption/position that "the church is true", whatever the hell that means. I'm on record as saying I want nothing to do with the church above my own bishop, and that resolve increases daily.

I think they are starting to pivot to a strategy of keeping people rather than dealing with the voices of those who are lost, so to speak. They can no longer exercise any reasonable degree of control on information flow - what was obscure is now well-known - but they can control the message. Everything they are doing, I think, is for the people who haven't started really questioning but will at some point. Start being transparent now, lose fewer people later. I think sending Jensen and Turley to do this meeting is part of that. This isn't work by proxy through Givens or FAIR or whoever else. This is two church leaders trying to address an issue. They weren't going to convince people like the hostile questioner but they may convince the guy that could become the hostile questioner tomorrow. There are only so many Zeezroms out there - better to keep than reclaim.

[Indy Coug]

Ultimately, the church doesn't have definitive answers to all of the historical questions and anomalies of the past. They aren't sealed up in the granite vaults or anywhere else for that matter. The church can't set the record straight because in most instances the record is incomplete or missing altogether.

They are then forced into the untenable position of having to extrapolate, just like everyone else, and when they choose not to extrapolate at all, or when they do extrapolate and they fail to do so in like manner with many others with historical issues, that just adds fuel to the fire.

These issues and concerns will never be fully resolved (nor IMO will they even be close to resolved) by increased disclosure, innoculation, independent scholarship, mea culpas, expressions of regret or what have you. It will continue to be as it always has been: getting an independent spiritual witness of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and a practical testimony that is grown through application of gospel principles in daily living. It's trite, it's unsexy and it's the truth.

[Goatnapper'96]

Okay, now you're just messing with my mind. There is no freaking way that BY would have been a polygamist and THEN get a university named after him.

I'm sympathetic to people that struggle with JS's shortcomings, and I believe they should be heard and respected and not dismissed out of hand. I understand if they see this or that issue as a dealbreaker. It's not unreasonable to look at some of JS's dalliances and conclude that he wasn't what he said he was. It may even be, for some, the only truly courageous and moral thing to do. I'll let God make the call on that one.

That said, I am a believer but I really take seriously the claim that not everything a prophet does is inspired. For me this includes, polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, blood atonement, and many other things besides. Mistakes, all of them.

I'm comfortable with saying JS was inspired about some things, not inspired about others, and often incapable of seeing the difference himself. I can live with that. But I see no need to reinforce his errors by pretending that they were divinely sanctioned.

That is my perspective. However, when it comes to the apostates you like to be tender and inclusive and give them the benefit of the doubt that they are noble and full of so much intellectual integrity that it makes your nipples hard. I, however, will agree with you in letting God sort it out but I prefer to call them stringpulling pussies who prematurely take their shoulders away from the wheel. Really, I don't think we are all that far apart!

[Goatnapper'96]

There are only so many Zeezroms out there - better to keep than reclaim.

They are business execs. They continue to do cost-benefit analysis and have concluded it will be more expensive to buy back the customer later.