Also, as to the issue of him marrying women who were already married, which is presented in the article, my understanding is that they were sealed through the ordinance for religious purposes, but that they weren't technically his wives.

So if they were not sealed to a husband on earth, their marriage would no longer be valid in the afterlife, and if their husbands refused the ordinance, refused to join the church, etc., this would lead to a situation where the woman wanted the sealing ordinance but would be unable to get one with her husband.  Thus, in the early days of the church, the sealing ordinance to make sure she is covered in the afterlife, would be performed to make sure she gets it done, and by default, it would usually be a church leader like Joseph Smith--but they were never husband and wife in the traditional sense.

So this is nothing new then?  Oddly they didn't have a link to the actual essays to read (or I missed it).

Well, new in the sense that Brigham Young seems to have pioneered this system I mentioned above (pardon the pun), until it was later abandoned.  It is still actually seen in some sense, in that the binding marriage of the sealing in the temple continues after death, even if you later, for example, become a widower and remarry a second wife.

The NY Times article has a link to the essay.

The Times article also quoted one woman as crying, "this is not the church I know." This suggested (the article implies, not the woman) that this was a reaction from more than one person.

The article (both the NY Times article and the essay) are unclear about Smith's relationships with the women involved. At times it appears that there are only a handful of women that might have had sex with him, at others it seems that only a few didn't.

The "religious purposes" qualifier might make sense in some instances, but I'm not convinced that all of them were so unhappy with their husbands spiritually that they would marry another man without simply carting off and deserting their families or something. Was everything else at home so good that they were exactly peeved enough for that?

Would I call it news? Meh. I think most who had an interest in finding out knew that Smith had more than one wife, but perhaps 40 is surprising... certainly to some.

I read over the article from the LDS church the other day, and it didn't strike me as saying what you're saying Heath.  Many of the women involved were already married to other men, so that "just to tick an ordinance box" doesn't really fly.  Also, it did sound like there were significantly more than just two women with whom Smith "had relations".

(Note, for those interested, the release from the LDS church is here)

I read the articles, and actually have to say that it didn't say much of anything specific at all and could be interpreted pretty much any way you wanted.  Due to much of the source material being fragmentary (according to the articles) it was awfully tough to determine too much at all.

One of the interesting sentences from that proclamation includes the idea that "ancient principles would be restored." This being something close to the end times, from what I'm understanding, the principles of the... I'll take a shot in the dark and point at the old testament for this. They might be talking about the New Testament or Calvinism or something, but seeing as how plural marriage in the Christian tradition (the books, not practice) happens more often in the OT I'm going with that.

So I guess that explains dietary laws. Are there currently ancient principles that aren't restored and, if so, when are they making a comeback?

Just looking at this now.  Your statement doesn't make sense in light of LDS theology, if I'm understanding you.

In LDS theology, you can be married "for time," which marriage ends at death and which is the standard.  But the belief is also that marriage can be "eternal," but which requires particular recognized ordinances and faithful spouses.

But it would never allow a man to marry a woman who is already married to another man, unless the other man is deceased--as that would be adultery.  So if the husband is dead, it depends on whom she is "sealed" to as her eternal partner.  She can get remarried to a man on earth for a companion during life if already eternally sealed to another man, or she can get married with the "sealing" for eternal marriage if she is not previously sealed.  (In some cases, a sealing can be undone, but that is rare.)

So if they were "already married to other men," as you say, then your statement only makes sense if the husbands were dead and they had only been married "for time," which means the marriage ended at death, and marriage to Joseph would have been a "remarriage."

That was fairly common back then because they did not have temples in which to perform the ceremonies for the dead (i.e., retain an eternal marriage to a deceased spouse), so they would be "sealed" to someone living so they could have the promise of a marriage relationship beyond death, and often would not have relations with that person even though it appeared to be a polygamous arrangement otherwise.

Or maybe I'm not clearly understanding what you're stating.

In reply to TheMonk (msg # 877):

Let me clarify what they mean.  Under LDS beliefs, the authority to act in God's name (such as prophets and priesthood) was lost from the earth  a few decades after Christ's death.

Therefore, all the keys and authority of Christ's church had to be restored prior to Christ's second coming.  Once the full authority is restored, prophecy states that it will never again leave the earth.  LDS belief is that this is what happened.

Also, there is a difference between a principle and a practice.  Plural Marriage is a principle.  Therefore, it had to be reintroduced at least temporarily to ensure "all" principles had been restored.  The authority then stays on earth.

Okay, I just read through the article, and I see the confusion:


Marriage can be for (1) time, (2) eternity, and (3) for time and eternity.  Only 1 and 3 are practiced now.  Back then, sealing for "eternity" meant that you were not technically married now, but after death, you would be married to the individual.  So there was no sexual component to it.  Being married for eternity is required for an individual to reach exaltation, the highest level of salvation.

That's probably where the idea of him being married to those currently married comes from.  They received the ordinance to ensure they would at least have received all ordinance qualifying them for exaltation.  There was no sexual or family component to it at all.  But apparently, despite the innocence of this idea to help the women, Joseph was rebuked by an angel or God for "demurring" on the plural marriage issue.  After the rebuke, Joseph only had the "for eternity" sealings with single women.  (See Paragraph 6 under "Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage")

That wouldn't explain why Emma considered it an excruciating experience, but also the LDS article states:
 

The article makes the distinction between "time and eternity" and sealings that were exclusively for the hereafter.

I had to go back and re-read the article since it'd be quite a while since we were discussing it.  Here are the bits that jumped out at me:

[emphasis Tycho's]
Not particularly relevant to the current discussion, but sort of jumped out at me.  I guess Smith was a bit more open to changing "traditional marriage motives and practices" than his modern day followers.  Which isn't too surprising, considering he implemented polygamy, but it was interesting to see it put this way by the church itself.  Especially the specific examples given (love and personal choice), which we're often told aren't what marriage is for or about these days.


That sounds a bit sneaky to me, but needs must, I guess.  Saying "the church" _only_ practices monogamy while "implicitly leaving open the possibility" that "individuals" might practice polygamy is something I would consider lying.  It's sort of like saying someone issued a "carefully worded statement emphasizing that they in no way killed the victim, while implicitly leaving open the possibility that the gun they didn't mention they were holding might have done so."  At best they were technically telling the truth in such a way as to make someone believe something false.  Whether that counts as "lying" or not can be debated, but to me it sounds like an intent to mislead, which is what counts as lying to me.  It's similar to Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" line--technically true in some sense (if you don't consider oral sex to count as sex), but intended to make people believe the exact opposite of the truth (ie, that nothing sexual had happened between them).  I'd put "The church practices no marital law other than monogamy" in the same boat, if the church leaders already had multiple wives when that was said.  Maybe technically true in some sense, but intended to make people think that no Mormons had plural marriages.

The next paragraph seems to be the one that Heath is overlooking:
[emphasis Tycho's]
Heath seems to be saying/implying (and correct me if I've misunderstood you Heath) that Smith 1) only married single women and 2) only had "for eternity only" marriages beyond his first where there was no sex involved in the here and now.  The paragraph above seems to show that the second position is not true.  The next paragraph shows the first is false:

[emphasis Tycho's]

So Heath's statement:

Seems to disagree with what the LDS church has put on their website about Smith's multiple wives.  And in case anyone wants to argue that these women were only getting remarried after their first husbands died, the article makes it a bit clear a few paragraph's later:



The next interesting thing that jumped out at me was the bit about Smith's first wife, Emma.

[emphasis Tycho's]
Not even telling his wife about all his "sealings" seemed pretty cold to me.  But just a few paragraph's later we get this:

It goes on to say that since she at times disapproved of plural marriage that made him exempt from the rule.  Which pretty much makes the rule moot.  "You have to get your wife's permission...unless she doesn't give you permission, in which case you don't need it."

Basically it all sounds moderately shady to me, but nothing to get all that wound up about since it happened long ago, and isn't being practiced today.  The part that gets under my skin a bit is that some people, like Heath, seem to want to deny the shady bits ever happened at all.  Even after his own church puts this up on its own webpage, he still tells me that I'm wrong for saying that Smith married women who were already married other men.  He tells me that would never be allowed, and would be adultery.  And I feel like saying "I linked to the article that your church put up about this.  They stated outright that Smith got married to already-married women, who's first husbands kept living with their wives.  I'm not making stuff up about your church, I'm quoting your own church's position on this." and then getting told "no, no, our church would never allow such a thing!  That'd be adultery!  You've got your facts all wrong."  I feel like cognitive dissonance is getting in the way here, and I'm not sure how to forward.  If the LDS church putting an article on it's own webpage saying that Smith married already-married women (whose first husbands were still alive, and living with them) isn't enough to convince you that this actually happened, I don't guess anything I can say or show you will.

I'm not sure I follow your point.  Joseph was only married to single women, and my comment was not about that.

Emma thought it was excruciating because, although she accepted the principle, the practice of introducing another live woman as her husband's wife was very difficult, as it would be for most women.

Yes, time and eternity sealings would have occurred for women who were not previously married.  But women who were, for example, widows would only receive marriage for time and not for eternity (assuming they were previously married for eternity to the prior husband).

To make it simple, a woman can only be married for time and eternity to one man, but a man can be married for time and eternity to more than one woman.  But these days, a man can only be married to one woman (at a time) for "time," and more than one woman for "eternity."

Not sure what you mean by this exactly, but I don't think it is accurate.  The moral behaviors that are acceptable have not changed.  Adultery, fornication, homosexual behaviors, etc. have always been "sinful" and not part of any acceptable "marriage."  This also includes certain deviant acts even within the bonds of marriage.  Also, "traditional marriage" as Joseph Smith understood it was Biblical in nature, in that "polygamy" was part of the Biblical tradition and necessary for a complete restoration of the true gospel.

In other words, polygamy was part of the keys of the priesthood that needed restoring for a complete restoration of gospel.  That didn't mean it needed to last long or to be practiced by everyone, but existed for a very narrow reason.

I'm also not sure what link you are referring to in your other quotes.  Perhaps you could provide a link so I can cross reference.

But (as I said) the motives and practices have.  And Smith was willing to reject what was socially acceptable at the time, despite most people considering polygamy immoral.  If we believe the story the LDS tells, even the mormons felt that polygamy was wrong at some level, and had to be convinced to take part in it by angels/revelation/whatever.  The idea that everyone has always (and continues to) consider polygamy as "traditional marriage" is pretty clearly false.  Smith basically told society "I don't care what your beliefs about marriage are, I disagree with you, so you can take a hike if you don't like it."  That to me is pretty interesting, given the LDS stance or marriage now.


I posted the link back in poste 875.  It's the LDS official statement on plural marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo.  It's the thing that started the whole discussion.  I realize it's been a long time, though.



That doesn't seem to be what the official LDS statement says.  As I quoted before:
[emphasis Tycho's]
and also:
[emphasis Tycho's]
You've claimed several times in this discussion (granted, over quite a long time) that Smith only married single women, but the LDS statement seems to contradict that.  If I can be rather forward, it might be good to do a thorough reading of the document before replying.  My impression is that the LDS released it as much to clear up misunderstandings/confusion on the part of Mormons about their religion's history, as to inform non-Mormons about it.  Put another way: this isn't me trying to tell you about your religion, this is me telling you to read what your own church leaders are trying to tell you about your religion (though admittedly I've added my own thoughts on their statement in the previous post).  We're unlikely to have much meaningful discussion on the significance of the document if we can't even agree on what it says!

I still don't think this is accurate.  You can't make a generality about what is socially acceptable, as that is irrelevant.  It also wasn't considered "immoral" per se.  Everyone who believes in the Bible knows that Abraham, Isaac and the Old Testament prophets practiced polygamy.  They were not "immoral" because immorality is based on behaviors, and heterosexual behaviors within the bonds of marriage were moral.  Homosexual behaviors were never moral in the Bible.

The rightness or wrongness of polygamy isn't a moral issue; it's an issue of religious observance.  This is why the two issues do not mesh.  Immoral behaviors are always immoral, but religious observances can change.

Anyway, every time we come to this subject, I feel that you try to use morality with duplicity.  Homosexual behavior is wrong according to morality and revealed prophecy.  Period.  The marriage practices of heterosexuals may change, but regardless, it always results in moral heterosexual behaviors.  The twain shall never meet.



Perhaps you failed to read the footnote:  "Polyandry, the marriage of one woman to more than one man, typically involves shared financial, residential, and sexual resources, and children are often raised communally. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith’s sealings functioned in this way, and much evidence works against that view."  The article states that there is no detail on these marriages, but it is indicated they were for eternity alone, meaning there was no sexual intercourse or meaning to it during this life.

Let me try to explain this more succinctly: you can be married for time, for eternity, or for all time and eternity.  This means:

1) Time: Time means you are married during this life, and the marriage ends upon death of a spouse, and will not continue after death.  It includes the moral right to engage in relations and bear children.

2) Eternity: Eternity means you will be married after the death of the spouse in the afterlife for all eternity.  Though you do not act as husband and wife in this life (no children or relations, etc.), you will be bound in the eternities.  In the past, this was typically practiced for women to have a chance at exaltation, since exaltation is only allowed for those who are married for eternity.  If their husbands for life (or "time") were not LDS or were not otherwise sealed to them, they would not be able to reach the highest degree of glory.  As I understand it, this is no longer practiced because now we have temples that can take care of the ordinance.

3) Time and eternity: this combines both of the above.  You are married for this life, have children, etc., and the marriage continues after death for eternity.

So unless it is stated that he was married for "time" or "time and eternity," the "marriage" is not really the same as a marriage like it is understood in today's society.  Indeed, it is more accurately called a "sealing" in today's nomenclature.

He only married single women for "time."  See above.  "For eternity" is different and is not the same.

I did.  You just misunderstood the nomenclature used in our church.

Your interpretation of it is what I have a problem with.

EDIT: While I get what you are saying about reading the article, please keep in mind that I have devoted nearly 45 years to this religion and have read more about it than 99% of people will ever do in their lifetime.  So when I hear a statement from you that feels "off," I may not actually have to read the specific article to try to clarify.  One little article cannot possibly encompass my 40+ years of collective knowledge on these issues.
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:34, Thu 23 Apr 2015.

This one is what we are specifically referring to and it's hard to interpret it in your favor, so maybe it's saying something contrary to your belief.

TL;DR: Read it.

If you say so.  I'd wager you'd be in the minority for that opinion, though.


That sounds pretty duplicitous to me.  ;)  Whatever heterosexuals do can change, but no matter what homosexuals do its always wrong?  Basically "we can do whatever we want, but you can't do anything you want."  But even if we take your statement here at face value, it contradicts your other view that polyandry and adultery (ie, heterosexual marriage practices) are sins.




This seems to be the impasse we're at.  I read the article and see very clearly that it's unknown.  You read that to mean it's "indicated" that it's one way.  Not sure we can get past that.

There's also this:

So at least some (ie, more than one; plural) women were married to Smith for both time and eternity.  It wasn't just one for time, and the rest all for eternity.


Also, you've changed your song and dance here.  You've said several times here that Smith never married women who were already married.  Not sealed, married.  That was the word you used.  You said that if he had married a woman who was currently married that would be adultery.  I point out that the document says he did, in fact, do just that, and you cry foul and say that he was never sealed to them "for time".  Maybe so, that's unknown, but it doesn't change the fact that he wasn't, in fact, married to them.  I've been arguing that he was married, and over and over you've told me I'm wrong about that.  But now you're trying to slip out of it by saying he wasn't sealed to them.  Fine, maybe he wasn't.  But at least be big enough to say "okay, sorry, I see the issue, I shouldn't have said 'married' when I did, I actually meant 'sealed.'" Instead of trying to make it seem like I'm twisting your words.  If you misspoke and said "married" when you meant "sealed," fair enough, that might explain the disagreement.  But please don't try to portray me as being unfair when I've been using the words you actually said, rather than the ones you now claim that you meant.  I'm not a mind-reader, so can only go by what you actually type.


Well, if you aren't willing to read the article we're actually discussing because you know better than the authors (ie, the leaders of your church, who are probably in that 1% of people who HAVE read more about its history than you), then there's not much point in the rest of us discussing it with you.  You create the impression that we shouldn't go to the sources ourselves, but instead should just trust your view on everything to do with LDS.  I don't think there's many people here willing to accept that.  I certainly don't, at least.

Saw this article today, and was reminded of this thread.  It's about a Mormon sunday school teacher who was fired for teaching about the history of Blacks in the Mormon church in his sunday school class (after his students asked him about it).  He used an essay published by church leadership on the church's official website, but got told not to teach it by his bishop.  He says his bishop told him "The Spirit is telling me to tell you not to use those documents."

People don't like to see their strongly-held beliefs challenged, and often refuse to even look at or consider evidence against them.  As an author quoted in the article says:


I think this kind of thing gets in the way of honest and open discussion sometimes.  I think all Mormons know and accept, on an intellectual level, that former church leaders and members were fallible human beings who sometimes made mistakes.  I've never heard any mormon reject that idea, and I've heard several of them say as much themselves.  However, when you point out specific cases of them making mistakes, they have a tendency to circle the wagons and reject the possibility out of hand.  Even when you show them documents produced by the LDS church leadership they don't want to admit that it could have happened.  On the one hand they know the church isn't perfect (its made up of humans, afterall), but on the other they feel they need to deny any imperfections ever existed.

I don't think your representation of it is exactly accurate.  Sunday School teachers are called by the Bishop and are supposed to teach the materials given to them.  When they deviate, there is always a fear that they might start promoting their own doctrine or deviating from things that are spiritual in nature into things that are more secular in nature.  Also, as the article states, the Bishop and leaders were not aware of this publication, so you can hardly blame them for being concerned that he might not be teaching canonized materials to teenagers.  As the article further states about the article:

"It was neither signed nor penned by the governing First Presidency, nor has it been mentioned, alluded to, or footnoted in speeches by LDS authorities at the faith's semiannual General Conferences."

Bringing non-canonical teachings into meetings is a concern when it is done by teachers.  I got slammed on that once myself too when I was a teacher.  These types of teachings are historical in nature, not spiritual.  That's why they do not belong in church, but in one's personal studies or other classes outside church.  (For teenagers, this type of teaching should have been done in their seminary classes, not at church.)  The church Sunday School program is meant to focus on canonized principles and things that will invite spiritual awakening, not on history or things that could serve to divide.

What the teacher should have done is refer the questions to the website/article and left it at that, telling them they could discuss it outside of church.  Not that I think he should have been removed from his calling, but that is the judgment call of the Bishop.

(I'm guessing there also be more to the story than reported in the article.)
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:04, Tue 15 Sept 2015.

It's a summary by a news outlet of [https://www.lds.org/topics/rac...-priesthood?lang=eng], which would likely have to be referred to as a church resource.

The youth in question, according to the article, was already aware of the history of the church with regards to blacks and was just looking for clarification. This suggests that he wasn't overseeing the 6 year olds.

He should've brought in the actual article as opposed to looking for a simplified version (a bit of an assumption on my part, but I don't think he was trying to do anything hurtful - this makes sense to me). I don't see why he shouldn't have supplied any and all who might have been interested in the answer with the answer. He was there to teach about his faith.

In reply to Heath (msg # 890):

The fact there are things that are "not to be discussed" in sunday school, even if they are statements made by church leadership illustrates my point pretty well, I'd say.  When I child or young adult asks an adult a question about the church, and the adult is supposed to say "I'm sorry, I'm not supposed to talk about that here," that seems to me like the church doesn't want kids looking at or thinking about these things.  The fact that you describe this as something that "could serve to divide," and thus consider it inappropriate for sunday school, makes it sound to me like the church is more interested in what the kids end up believing, rather than giving the kids all the information so they can make an informed decision.

It's one thing to say "we don't want you teaching this because it's not true," but it's entirely another to say "okay, we accept that this is true, but we still don't want the kids to know about it."  When a group fears what will happen when young people know the truth about its history, that doesn't speak well of the group, to me at least.  To me, the best way to illustrate that the past mistakes aren't being continued, is being open and honest about them, not trying to prevent people from learning about them.

No, Tycho, I still think you are wrong, and for two reasons:

1) The Bishop oversees the ward and all things taught in the ward.  It is his "stewardship." If he says don't teach it, then you don't. Period.  Even if he's wrong.  Another bishop may not have any problem with it and may allow such things to be freely taught.  But that's not what we have here.  The guy needs to be obedient if he wants to teach under that Bishop.  Otherwise, he needs to be released from that teaching position and he can teach whatever he wants to.
It is not something that is "not to be discussed."  That particular bishop simply decided it was in that particular situation.  Maybe he was wrong and maybe it should have been allowed. That's not my call.

2) Going to church on Sunday (including Sunday School) is to worship and invite spiritual discussions.  It is not about debates, history lessons, or controversy.  Would you go into a Catholic Mass and disturb it with something that is not part of the purposes of that ceremony?  Would you go to a Jewish Barmitsvah and start preaching about the holocaust?  Would you interrupt Muslim morning prayer by trying to discuss fine points of the Koran while they are trying to pray?

There is a place to learn those things.  There is seminary and institute classes.  Those are the places where these things are discussed.  For you to intimate that these things cannot be discussed or taught at all is simply inaccurate.  There is a time and place for it, and worship service is neither the time nor place.

Perhaps there's some disagreement on terms. I see you're using three different ones for where people learn about religion, and not in ways I'm used to.

Here's how I use them:
1) Sunday School - where kids learn about religion, ask questions, and get answers. Sure, sometimes the answers get bumped up to a priest, but they don't go unanswered. (I should add that our Sunday School isn't actually on Sundays. It's on a weekday afternoon.)

2) Seminary - where an adult goes to study for the priesthood.

3) Institute classes - I have no idea what you mean by this.

How was he to know that it's "not to be discussed"? Is that generally understood or had someone spoken to him before about it... the article doesn't say.

Oh, and what about converts? Some of them (self included during a certain period of my life) didn't know about seminary or anything... just Sunday School. Why wouldn't you raise questions about the faith during Sunday School? And that curiosity is met with a rebuff?

Is Sunday School a worship service? I remember the kids singing songs and such, but if the child had a moment to raise this question... what was going on? What kind of lesson were they doing that opened up this line of discussion?

Too many questions about the circumstances, but I do know that people investigating the church are far more likely to be in Sunday School than seminary. If an investigator were to try and address a concern during such a session and was told he'd need to attend seminary to address it that sounds like too much indoctrination... I'd just google it later, which I'm sure would result in a church-positive experience.