In part 2 of this 3 part series, we interview John Lynch, Chairman of the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR), a volunteer group dedicated to Mormon Apologetics. In this episode, John Lynch discusses the top issues bubbling up to FAIR these days, the realities of LDS leadership, the distinction between “good” and “bad” apologetics, the growing problem of “Internet Mormonism”, and answers the question as to whether or not Mormon apologetics is a gateway to apostacy.
To listen, click here.
John, I felt shorted by this one. Only 40 minutes?
I enjoy the flow and connection that a longer discussion brings, though I understand the reasons for the 1 hour target length.
I have thoroughly enjoyed your interviews. I am too impatient or busy (both, really) to spend much time searching blogs, boards, etc. for quality discussion of LDS issues which I care to follow, so Mormon Stories is a true find to me. I’m not a subscriber (have just never bothered with the software and subscription issue) but a regular listener (I check nearly every day for new podcasts). I only wish there were 20 more sites as even-handed, open, and engaging as yours. Keep it coming.
I’m frustrated with some of the “meat” issues in the church and am looking for truthful answeres. Problem is the very people discussing this “meat” or church history, like John the apologist, discount themselves by saying “don’t expect us apologists to be correct”. Okay, so, if Fair doesn’t claim to be correct and the church isn’t backing them, I guess I’ll have to turn to the Genral Authorities for info. Problem is the Prophet and First Presidency don’t give us that information, just stuff like “I don’t know that we teach that”.
Anyway. Can you see the dilemna of members like me? Is there no remedy?
For me, the remedy is to focus less on answers. I used to love answers, but now I find them less meaningful, and less reassuring than I once did.
Now that I see life in shades of grey, and very nuanced, I’m much more interested in a good question than a good answer.
I’m actually a bit suspicious of anyone anymore who thinks they have “the answer” or “an answer”. For any of the important questions in life, it seems to me that things are never simple enough for there to be some sort of categorical, final answer to any point.
Obviously, the hard part about this is reconciling this view with how we were all raised–that the Church has all the answers. But I don’t think the bretheren really teach that these days…that they have all the answers. I actually think it’s pretty bold of President Hinckley to say “I don’t know”. Hopefully all the members are paying attention to that.
Dear Eric,
Yes there is a remedy. I sympathe with you, because years ago, before the internet, I wanted info on J&D and HC and now we are so lucky to have all this material at our fingertips!
I would suggest you do not give up on the gospel of the Church, keep asking questions, keep searching and learning. It is a process, Eric and I can promise you you’ll get through it. Read joseph smith, rough stone rolling by Bushman, read rlds “community of christ” version of church history, read J&D available on line, then ask yourself this question:
Do I have more peace when following the tenents of this religion?If not, what would make me happiest and/or peaceful and content?
Keep an open mind that this Church is based on continious,ever-changing info and yes at times “policies” (i.e. blacks and the priesthood).
The original Church of Christ was in a state of constant change as were my anscestors, the hebrews in the OT.
If you want specific ques. I would love to help you out and direct you to reading resources (both mormon and non-mormon)
Best wishes, kittywaymo
Eric, I think the issue is that for many questions we are all inquiring and improving in what we know. The approach is more like science than unambiguous revelation. Yet, I think that tends to be what God wants us to do. He doesn’t want to give us clear answers to everything. When he does provide answers, even the rather unambiguous ones in the D&C, they are still rather vague.
.
I think this is entailed by our concept of agency and our view of this life as a test with a veil of forgetfulness. If we had all the clear answers it wouldn’t be much of a test. It would just be, “get a little converted, get all the answers.” I think for most of the brethren they are as intrigued by many questions as the rest of us. I’m reminded of the Lord’s comments in D&C 9 to Oliver Cowdery where he emphasized study. I suspect the reason why we, the church as a whole, don’t get more public answers is because we, the church as a whole, don’t follow the process the Lord has laid down. I’m not at all convinced we’re even taking the Book of Mormon as seriously as we should, despite Pres. Benson’s warning.
John Lynch, FAIR Chairman, was recently interviewed by John Dehlin. You can listen to the Internet broadcast HERE.
Disclaimer: I don’t necessarily believe or endorse Biblical or Christian stance on doctrine and religious validity. I just find it entertaining to include Biblical references when criticizing Mormonism. They believe they have the Bible in their corner until it clearly tells them something contradictory to their doctrine or practice. Again, I’m not necessarily Christian . . . it’s just fun to show Mormons that even the Bible tells them that they’re probably wrong.
Here are my notes after listening to the interview.
Unless otherwise noted, comments were made by John Lynch, chairman of FAIR.
Flawed men can absolutely lead this church.
• [Immediately these scriptures came to mind: 1, 2, and 3]
It’s unfair for us to expect that a man’s flaws of character diminish once he’s had hands laid upon his head and set apart.
• [This scripture doesn’t say so.]
The “brethren” have a difficult line to walk. They need to focus on what is good and right and true and point towards that.
• [This scripture states that we should let no man deceive us. The presidency of the church, from Joseph Smith till now, have definitely not abided by this commandment.]
“We should become immunized by the fact that ‘the brethren’ have faults.” – Dehlin
• [Though I feel that the LDS faith should be honest about their faith, statements like this are hard to hear. Is the purpose of telling the truth to inform and let the decision be on the listener, or is it to immunize, so as to diminish the content of what really happened into a, “I’ve heard something about that, so it’s okay” attitude?]
Men can be flawed, and still inspired and ‘called of God’ and therefore, ‘Worth following to the ends of the earth.’ – Dehlin
• [Not informing young men and women regarding what they’re going to agree to in the temple beforehand, is ludicrous. This essay illustrates that quite well. The temple quote goes something like, "… we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God …"]
• [This scripture also comes to mind.]
• [Letting missionaries believe that if they were to die on a mission they are going straight to Heaven is one thing. Making them agree to in a socially awkward, pressured system is ludicrous. Following LDS church leadership to the ends of the earth is, in my opinion, very dangerous.]
[Apologetics of FAIR] aren’t coming in with a preset bias or looking at the world in such a way as to prove that all things are evidence of the church being true.
• [Though it’s my personal opinion and I don’t have much time to devote just yet, to refuting this, I believe this comment to be worth less than a pound of bull shit. The next comment made by Lynch puts this very statement to shame.]
There is a difference between a researcher and an apologist. An apologist is someone who goes and looks for research that confirms what their belief is and helps him defend. A researcher is someone that is interested with facts.
• [Again, I can’t help but emphasize this again. The previous statement made was a direct contradiction to this. It said, ‘[Apologetics of FAIR] aren’t coming in with a preset bias or looking at the world in such a way as to prove that all things are evidence of the church being true.]
In as much as you’re a researcher and an apologist, don’t let your tendencies as an apologist interfere with your research. If the research [and facts you have] happens to coincide [your belief or argument] accept it. If it happens to contradict, deal with it appropriately: put it on the backburner let it settle it till you gain more information and see how it really comes through.
• [I am absolutely appalled at this advice to apologetics give by Lynch. It’s crazy talk! From my understanding he’s saying, if something supports your argument, bring it out. If there is something that you find that actually contradicts and disproves your argument, don’t reveal it and wait till something comes out that explains it away. This is absolutely disgusting. It’s like telling you that a drug will give you a high, but not disclosing the addictive and destructive effects. The Jesus that Mormonism claims to follow certainly told his followers not to deceive.]
[While discussing Internet Mormonism and the critical online presence of Anti-Mormons, Lynch said,] “What FAIR is trying to do is provide a return for ‘the one’ while the ninety and nine are safe [within] in our chapels.”
• [I am not sure if Lynch meant to say this, but it is one message I got out of his statement. ‘If people don’t have access to the Internet, they’re safe in our chapels.’ This makes me snicker a bit. My response is, ‘you just wait!’ Men in the church seem to underestimate the effect it has on a loving woman to hear about Joseph’s polyandry and molesting of teenage girls. It goes beyond God told him to do it, or he was restoring and OLD TESTAMENT ‘doctrine.’ There is simply no way around his, and Brigham’s sexual misconduct. I don’t care how wide the streets are in Utah or how well this beehive system thinks it’s prepared for a millennium! Also, I couldn’t care less about where the church is today, or even if the original founders had some good intentions. Mormonism started as an extreme cult, and even though there are worse out there, it is fundamentally harmful. I see it much like the movie THE VILLAGE. The founders wanted to protect their little county in a deranged sort of way. It was just too damaging to keep up the charade and lie.]
Is there truth to the claim that FAIR has specialists that work on making search engines have the positive websites show up first? – Dehlin
-“No, but I wish there were.” – Lynch
• [Hmmm. Look out RfM, I wonder how long it takes for this to become a reality.]
Did you really say that it was worthwhile to follow flawed men to the end of the earth, John? If so, at what point do we have to be more afraid of God than of men? When does obedience become blind obedience? At what point to we become complicit with the errors of our leaders, especially when there is ecclesiastical abuse involved?
Hyrum, I don’t think you’re giving this a fair listening.
For example, you find his statement “aren’t coming in with a preset bias or looking at the world in such a way as to prove that all things are evidence of the church being true” to be contradictory with what follows. I don’t. Why?
Because the apologists *I* know *don’t* take “all things” to be proof of the church. In fact, some active members don’t like certain apologists because of the high standards they set before accepting somethng as evidence. I don’t know anyone at FAIR who accepts the Michigan relics, for example, or that “the dead sea scrolls prove the Church is true.”
Your hostility prevents you from hearing what Lynch is actually saying, IMHO. At least you recognized that in your last example.
Hellmut, I’ll follow flawed men as far as God. Besides Jesus, has there ever been an unflawed leader?
Nor is this blind obediance.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc17.html
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc07.html
“Some may say, “Brethren, you who lead the Church, we have all confidence in you, we are not in the least afraid but what everything will go right under your superintendence; all the business matters will be transacted right; and if brother Brigham is satisfied with it, I am.” I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, “If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,” this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.
“Every man and woman in this kingdom ought to be satisfied what we do, but they never should be satisfied without asking the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, whether what we do is right. When you are inspired by the Holy Ghost you can understandingly say, that you are satisfied; and that is the only power that should cause you to exclaim that you are satisfied, for without that you do not know whether you should be satisfied or not. You may say that you are satisfied and believe that all is right, and your confidence may be almost unbounded in the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ, but if you asked God, in the name of Jesus, and received knowledge for yourself, through the Holy Spirit, would it not; strengthen your faith?”
-Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p.45
“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”-
(Journal of Discourses, 9: 150.) Discourses of Brigham Young, 135. (Quoted by Elder Faust in Reach up for the Light, 115. To Reach Even unto You, 36. Ensign, Sept. 1998, 4. Ensign August 1996, 7. Ensign Nov. 1989, 10-11. quoted by Elder Maxwell in A More Excellent Way, 20. We will Prove Them Herewith, 21-22. Quoted by Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, July 1972, 61. Conference Report, October 1963, 17-18.Quoted by Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1950, 130.)
“While all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the Authorities of the Church, no one should accept a statement and base his testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then his logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his spirit because real conversion must come from within.”
-Elder Hugh B. Brown, “Pres. Brown Addresses BYU,” Deseret News Church Section, 24 May 1969, 13.
George Q. Cannon
Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. … Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or woman.
Millennial Star 53:658-659, 673-675.
Sorry, hit button mid-editing. First sentence should read “I’ll follow flawed men as far as God tells me to through personal confirmation.”
Ben –
Though I respect your opinion, of which you rightfully stated was just that, your opinion; I would hope that you and I both can turn around and place ourselves in the shoes of the other person.
I mean, I can put myself in the shoes of believers or even apologists, both of which I have sincerely done before. In my opinion, this is something that “true believers” lack, namely, the ability to consider that the church could actually be false.
I have considered the church to be true, inasmuch as I paid tithing and more than a TENTH of my life (at the time I served) on a mission. I have and can put myself in a place where I think about considering the church to be true. My wife and I do this all the time to try to find out how we’ll raise our future family. I pretend like I am her and she does the same for me. Then we come up with a solution.
Of course I know, believe, whatever, that the church is absolutely false. Under no pretense whatsoever, should a full grown man have sex with various women, and teenage girls. Doing so under the banner of, “God told me so” puts this man in the same ethical category as the Brian David Mitchell’s of the world. There is no excuse. NONE!
So your statement which read:
Your hostility prevents you from hearing what Lynch is actually saying, IMHO.
Is somewhat true, and yet, I have been a believer. I can put myself in those shoes on a moment’s notice. Quite literally, if I thought the church to be true, I feel I could probably be a pretty good apologist. I’m not coming to the table with a preconceived notion, other than protecting my children!!! Anyone who requires allegiance to the point of requiring the giving of their life, if needs be, I will forever discourage my children from getting involved with. Especially if the cause is to further that organization’s power. Even more so if the leader and founder doesn’t have a clean criminal record, or translating record, or marriage record, or magic seeking record, or religious record, or basically, if the founder just isn’t trustworthy, i.e., JOSEPH SMITH!
Hey Hyrum!
Can you send me the time code of the place where I said this, “Men can be flawed, and still inspired and ‘called of God’ and therefore, ‘Worth following to the ends of the earth.’” – Dehlin
I don’t remember what I said, or the context, but now you’ve got me interested.
I’ll be surprised if that’s what I said….and I know it’s not quite what I meant…. As you know, my mission experience alone precludes me from taking such an absolute stance.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Please point me to the time code when you can.
John
Hyrum,
I’m totally open to the possibility that Joseph consumated at least some, if not many of his plural marriages…but what have you read that makes you so certain?
Just curious.
I’ve always heard/read that the evidence was inconclusive on this point….
John
TIME STAMPS of Dehlin’s Comments
8 min 34 sec
immunized comment
- in case you ask. this one surprised me. i hope people don’t become immunized, EVER, to the disturbing church history. much of it, if not most, is simply not acceptable.
12 minutes:
“so we can culturally put it behind us . . . prophets aren’t infallable, even being men, they can still be inspired and worth following to the ends of the earth”
note
- i could have understood it incorrectly, but i wasn’t trying to twist anything, i promise, it was just interesting to hear, and stuck quickly, so i wrote it down!
-hyrum
John, I don’t have the time code (or the time to find it right now), but my recollection pretty much matches Hyrum’s that this is what you said. If there’s a transcription error, would you please post the correct text in this thread?
On consumating plural marriages, it’s my understanding that the diary evidence suggests that Joseph consumated at least many and maybe all of his marriages with reproductive-age women. However, the lack of any DNA evidence of descendents to date constitutes the primary counterevidence. (Oh, yeah, and Emma said he didn’t. Well, that settles it… =))
Nice interview! I can’t wait for the third part.
Disclaimer
Some information on my willingness and time restraints to engage in this discussion:
I simply don’t have tons of time right now. I am in my last semester as a senior for my Bachelor’s Degree. I had some free time today and couldn’t miss Dehlin’s podcast. Of all Mormon related podcasts, I find his to be engaging and wonderful. I appreciate his candure and courage. That being said, I do disagree with various points of some of the points a few of the guests have brought up. Dehlin is doing an excellent job in his efforts.
I have come to a conclusion mostly with the Doctrine & Covenants that Joseph Smith had sex with his “wives.” A letter which was supposed to be burned, that is well documented, in which Joseph wanted to see a young girl, and included how it shouldn’t be revealed to Emma . . . it’s undeniable. I have taken some notes, and continue to do so on this.
I know the church is false, and I find it odd that I have to take notes on some guy’s sexual habits to debate the matter, but I do it . . . and strangely enough, I find it interesting.
So, I only have time now to cut and past out of Deconstructor’s website. Maybe when I’m out of school, I’ll have time to post why D&C is enough to see why polygamy is about sex and is wrong. It’s very well researched. It’s past the point of being convincing.
The cut and paste
1. Did Joseph Smith have more than one wife while he was alive?
Absolutely. Just check Joseph Smith’s official church marriage record at http://www.familysearch.org.
Faithful LDS member and historian Todd Compton has found solid documentation for Smith marriages to 33 women while he was alive. True, many more were sealed to him after his death, but Smith had at least 33 wives while he was alive.
Compton Writes:
“In the group of Smith’s well-documented wives, eleven (33 percent) were 14 to 20 years old when they married him. Nine wives (27 percent) were twenty-one to thirty years old. Eight wives (24 percent) were in Smith’s own peer group, ages thirty-one to forty. In the group aged forty-one to fifty, there is a substantial drop off: two wives, or 6 percent, and three (9 percent) in the group aged fifty-one to sixty.”
“The teenage representation is the largest, though the twenty-year and thirty-year groups are comparable, which contradicts the Mormon folk-wisdom that sees the beginnings of polygamy was an attempt to care for older, unattached women. These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the motivation for Smith’s polygamy. In fact, the command to multiply and replenish the earth was part of the polygamy theology, so non-sexual marriage was generally not in the polygamous program, as Smith taught it.”
2. Why did Joseph Smith have 33 wives?
Jacob 2: 24-30
24 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… 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.
(The Lord is saying here that the only reason for more than one wife is to “raise up seed” unto Him.)
D&C 132:
Verse 37: Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness…
Verse 41: And as ye have asked concerning adultery…
(Why is adultery an issue? Simply being married or “sealed” to more than one woman in an otherwise chaste arrangement might be bigamy or polygamy, but it’s not adultery. Adultery is a sexual act.)
Verses 62-63: And if he [Joseph Smith] have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified…. for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.
In fact, Joseph Smith’s original 1831 polygamy revelation, given to a group of married men while they were visiting a Native-American tribe, also explains procreation as the purpose of polygamy:
“For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles.”
- Prophet Joseph Smith, The Joseph Smith Revelations Text and Commentary, p. 374-376, http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/indianpolygamyrevelation.htm
Brigham Young taught that “This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth.” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197.)
3. But did Joseph Smith obey the commandment and have sex with his wives?
Compton writes:
“Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph’s wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives-despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage.”
- Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph’s wife “in very deed.” (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)
- In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)
- Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she “roomed” with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had “carnal intercourse” with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)
In total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.
- Joseph Smith’s personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith’s first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
William Clayton’s journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)
- Smith’s secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: “Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep.” Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera “as man and wife” and “occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife.” Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: “I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F.” (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also “The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)
- Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith’s son: “Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, “I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.”" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)
4. Did Joseph Smith father any children from his polygamous wives?
- Stake President Angus Cannon also testified: “I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl’s grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl’s grandmother was Mother Sessions . . . She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today, in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report . . . The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living.” (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.)
- Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: “She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church.” (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)
- In her testimony given at a Brigham Young University devotional, Faithful Mormon Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith’s plural wives: “I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names.” (Read her full BYU testimony here: http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm)
- Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell’s wife and simultaneously a “plural wife” of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman “or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver.” And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith’s boys.
(Mary Ettie V. Smith, “Fifteen Years Among the Mormons”, page 34; also Fawn Brodie “No Man Knows My History” pages 301-302, 437-39)
- Researchers have tentatively identified eight children that Joseph Smith may have had by his plural wives. Besides Josephine Fisher (b. Feb. 8, 1844) and Oliver Buell, named as possible children of Joseph Smith by his plural wives are John R. Hancock (b. Apr. 19, 1841), George A. Lightner (b. Mar. 12, 1842), Orson W. Hyde (b. Nov. 9, 1843), Frank H. Hyde (b. Jan 23, 1845), Moroni Pratt (b. Dec. 7, 1844), and Zebulon Jacobs (b. Jan 2, 1842). (“Mormon Polygamy: A History” by LDS Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, pages 44, 48- 49n3.)
There is another piece of evidence you might consider in examining Joseph Smith’s sexual behavior. The following excerpt is from a love letter Joseph Smith wrote when he wanted to arrange a liaison with Newel K. Whitney’s daughter Sarah Ann, whom Smith had secretly “married.” It reveals Smith’s cloak-and-dagger approach to his extramarital affairs:
“… the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty. … Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater friendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. … I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont, dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith.”
- Joseph Smith Handwritten Letter, http://www.xmission.com/~research/family/strange.htm
Read the detailed history of each of Joseph Smith’s 33 plural wives in Todd Compton’s excellent book In Sacred Loneliness.
For some details on the other married women Joseph married and impregnated, see:
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org
http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/polyg.htm
http://www.lds-mormon.com/isl.shtml
Hyrum — great copy-and-paste. This is quite representative of the documentary evidence I mentioned. There is actually quite a bit more, in fact.
Weren’t the children *thought* to be Joseph’s DNA tested and proved not to be? I thought there was a MHA presentation this year on that.
As for age, certainly I find the women younger than 18 to be somewhat troubling. But then I think of my great grandmother who was barely 15 when she married my great grandfather who was (I think) 30. They were very happy. While the age issue wasn’t the non-issue some apologists sometimes assert, neither was it that uncommon.
I can understand people being troubled by polygamy – especially the large numbers. I suspect myself that had polygamy continued past the 1890′s that there would have been some revelation limiting it as we find in say Islam. That is, preventing these large numbers of wives.
Having said that though if polygamy was around, exactly why wouldn’t someone sleep with their wives? Isn’t that pretty normal? And if you were to marry an other wife, wouldn’t you probably still primarily go after the attractive younger women just as most single men do? I’m not justifying all this. Far from it. But I’m not sure, once someone buys into the logic of polygamy, that these other matters are as problematic. The real issue is polygamy.
I fully admit I find polygamy troubling. But I’m not sure some of the judgments people make are fair. Certainly I find Joseph’s polygamy far less troubling than say the story of Abraham and Hagar.
BTW – thanks for fixing the paragraph spacing John.
“thanks for fixing the paragraph spacing John.”
My pleasure. Jonathan Stapley made me do it…
“There is a difference between a researcher and an apologist. An apologist is someone who goes and looks for research that confirms what their belief is and helps him defend. A researcher is someone that is interested with facts.”
This has to be the most unintentionally funny comment I’ve heard all year!!
John,
I thought that statement about following flawed folks to the end of the earth was out of character.
With respect to your enquiry about evidence regarding Joseph’s sex life, I have to say that the claim of marriage with no sex is more outlandish than polygamy with sex.
Men who get married have sex.
Joe is the man who married several girls and women.
Therefore Joseph had sex with several girls and women.
Anybody who claims the contrary has to overcome a larger burden of proof than those who assume that Joe had sexual relations with his wives.
• The nature of male sexuality supports the notion that Joe had sex with his wives.
• Emma’s jealousy supports the notion that her husband had sex with his other wives.
• D&C 132 said that Joseph was justified to do like Abraham, David and Salomon who all had sex with their wives and concubines.
• D&C 132 says that polygamy is about impregnating women.
The notion that Joseph did not have sex with his wives is absurd. If anyone made similar claims on behalf of gentiles such as Ron Hubbard, for example, we would dismiss it out of hand.
Cheers, Hellmut
Ben,
I don’t give much stock into Brigham Young’s rhetoric about the Saints’ obligation to question their leaders. I look at how he treated dissenters and it is clear what he really meant.
Whether or not I will follow anyone in the absence of self-interest depends on their fruits. I am not going to be complicit in the activities of men who ask people to lie to preserve their standing in the “Church.”
Regards, Hellmut
“so we can culturally put it behind us . . . prophets aren’t infallable, even being men, they can still be inspired and worth following to the ends of the earth”
Well, I went back and listened, and I definitely said it. After trying to put myself back in the mindset, here’s what I meant to say, for what it’s worth…
1) LDS folk need to get over the expectation of their prophets and leaders being perfect. This statement I stand by.
2) What I meant to say with “can still be inspired and worth following to the ends of the earth”….is that even flawed prophets can (meaning have the potential) to still be worthy of following, in spite of their flaws.
The only thing I’d add is a huge “if they’re acting appropriately” clause/disclaimer to that statement.
Because of my missionary experience, and knowledge of church history–it is not within my capacity to ever advocate blind obedience of any sort….so believe me when I say that wasn’t my intention. I can also say that there are MANY quotes where the bretheren have DISCOURAGED us from blind obedience….along with a ton where they also indicated that they wouldn’t mind it so much.
Anyway, I’m just saying that a prophet’s imperfection doesn’t immediately disqualify him from being worthy of obedience….even to the ends of the earth…if the prophet is acting worthily of such loyalty/devotion. Of course for me, this is a HUGE if….but I still consider it within the realm of possibility….
….like, for example….if a guy like Lowell Bennion or Eugene England ever became prophet…I might see this within the realm of possible. I’m open to to the possibility of GBH being this type of prophet as well…but I would have to judge him by his fruits, and by what he was asking us to do.
For what it’s worth…that’s what I would say if I could say it over again.
Sometimes, I’m not the quickest on my feet….
John
There are problems with the “evidence” and history. Much was written about Joseph Smith from very antagonistic sources that now seems to be accepted at face value.
Suddenly the National Enquirer has the same status as the Wall Street Journal.
The following quote is a classic example. For Joseph to be the father of Precindia’s son would be a miracle, as Joseph was locked up in jail at the time of conception.
You can’t just accept all of these things at face value–especially from Brodie’s book.
———————————————
- Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell’s wife and simultaneously a “plural wife” of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman “or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver.” And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith’s boys.
(Mary Ettie V. Smith, “Fifteen Years Among the Mormons”, page 34; also Fawn Brodie “No Man Knows My History” pages 301-302, 437-39)
Hellmut said:
I don’t give much stock into Brigham Young’s rhetoric about the Saints’ obligation to question their leaders. I look at how he treated dissenters and it is clear what he really meant.
Allen asks:
How do you feel that Brigham treated dissenters? What did you look at to reach that determination?
-Allen
Scott, one of the reasons that much of the antagonistic evidence about Joseph Smith is now taken as seriously as the (equally partisan) pro-Smith evidence that has formed the basis for our traditional denominational histories is that friendly evidence has turned out to confirm some of the most important points from the antagonistic material.
Take the much maligned Hurlbut-Howe affadavits, for example. Those affadavits made two major substantive charges against Joseph: that he was a superstitious, folk-magical treasure digger, and that he and his father drank too much alcohol. A wide array of evidence from sympathetic and from neutral sources has been found to confirm the claim that Joseph was a treasure-digger. Furthermore, Joseph’s own History of the Church confirms that Joseph drank alcohol throughout his life — although the question of whether he drank too much is subjective. Joseph Smith, Sr., however, apparently thought of himself as having a drinking problem, because he used the story of Noah being drunk and naked to refer to himself in a patriarchal blessing for one of his children. So the Hurlbut-Howe affadavits got both of these points right.
But note that there’s nothing problematic about this conclusion, which historians reached after careful triangulation with the sympathetic evidence. Just because some people didn’t like Joseph Smith doesn’t automatically imply that they were lying about him.
RT, I don’t think most of the apologists are saying in the least that we ought simply discount hostile witnesses. Rather we’re saying that we shouldn’t take them at face value – anymore than defenders trying to put the best face on things ought be taken at face value. The problem is that some historians and quasi-historians do this if it fits their thesis. It doesn’t matter whether they are apologist, anti-mormon, scholarly pro-Mormon, or scholarly critic. That sort of approach is fraught with danger.
Not all historical sources are to be trusted or valued the same. Mary Ettie V. Smith, for example—the sole source I have found for the Oliver Buell claim—has some credibility issues.
First, Mrs. Smith, it was reported, claimed in Fifteen Years Among The Mormons that “she seems to have had opportunities of becoming thoroughly acquainted with the practical workings of Mormonism, and with the real state of things among that deluded and fanatical people. She is the sistor of one of their High Priests, is personally acquainted with most of their leaders, and long had the confidence of Brigham Young himself.
“According to her story, her life in Utah was unendurable. She was forced to see, and hear, and do, and be, all that was most revolting to her nature as a woman. She became convinced, at last, that the religion, in which she had been educated, was worse than a delusion; she was terrified with the crimes in which she was compelled to become an accomplice; and thoroughly loathing the society in Utah, on the earliest opportunity, she fled for her life.
“If the tenth part of her story is true, language cannot express the depth of the degradation of the people in Utah. Yet her narrative has every appearance of being truthful; and coming out, as it does, under the auspices of so respectable a publisher as Mr. Scribuer, it presents unusual claims to be considered a reliable account of the unparalleled wickedness, meanness, folly and fanaticism, that are clustered around Great Salt Lake City” (The New Englander. Volume 16, Issue 63, August 1858, p.703-4).
According to another report, Mrs. Smith reveals in the same book that she “was the wife of a Danite and according to her narrative, she was used by Brigham Young to set up the robbery and murder of gentiles passing through the territory.” An objective historian would acknowledge the potential problems in this source, and certainly and no definitive conclusion concerning a sexual relationship between Prescindia and Joseph can be established by the book’s claim.
Second, the date for Joseph’s sealing to Prescindia is known: 11 December 1841. We also know Oliver Buell was born in either spring 1839 or on 31 January 1840. One would have to show that Jospeh was intimate with a woman to whom he had not yet been sealed. No credible source or historian has shown that Joseph was sleeping with women before he was sealed to them.
Now, having said all that, this is really not the point. I have no problem with Joseph Smith’s plural marriage practices because I believe his and his wives account that they believed they were acting based on revelation and commandment from God to enter these relationships. Those of you who do not believe do so because you think God didn’t (and perhaps couldn’t) command these things to be so. Your belief in what God did not or could not command is no more valid or invalid than what you would say my belief is.
I have studied this topic in great detail and am not afraid of the facts so far as they can be established, and it causes me no difficulty whatever.
Me: I am completely willing to agree with you that not all sources are equally valuable. Some of the early New York sources, for example, including the guy who claims that Joseph Smith confessed to him that he never had the Gold Plates, are really not credible. Likewise, Mormon first-hand accounts of the events related to Mountain Meadows Massacre are not credible because they are the self-justifications of murderers and their families. The challenge in all of this is to be as even-handed as possible with the evidence — which in turn requires us to try to set aside our personal, often faith-based preconceptions about what our history contains.
With respect to Mary Ettie V. Smith, I must confess that I have little knowledge. Hence, I’d like to ask you for a bit more information. I’m sure you have good reasons for dismissing her testimony, but those reasons are somewhat unclear to me after reading your comments. You quote the text as claiming that she “was the wife of a Danite and according to her narrative, she was used by Brigham Young to set up the robbery and murder of gentiles passing through the territory,” and then imply that the problems with this source are obvious. Could you explain why they’re obvious? Danites certainly did exist, and the robbery and murder of outsiders claim (if arguably not the claim of Young’s involvement) sounds like an accurate description of the Mountain Meadows incident. So I’d appreciate a little bit more information about why these claims make Mrs. Smith inherently non-credible. (Not that I have any attachment of any sort to the idea that she’s credible — I’d just like to understand your reasoning a bit better.)
I have not read her book (not because of lack of interest but lack of availability) and cannot with any authority say for certain that the reviews of its contents are accurate. Of hand I would say that Brigham Young did not likely use her to set up robbery and murder, or that she was a “confidant” of Brigham Young as the title claims. I will do some research on her life and let you know what I find.
One point to mention now, she only lived in Utah 5 years (1849 to 1854) and was not present when the Mountain Meadows Massacre occurred.
Hyrum: Disclaimer: I don’t necessarily believe or endorse Biblical or Christian stance on doctrine and religious validity. I just find it entertaining to include Biblical references when criticizing Mormonism. They believe they have the Bible in their corner until it clearly tells them something contradictory to their doctrine or practice. Again, I’m not necessarily Christian . . . it’s just fun to show Mormons that even the Bible tells them that they’re probably wrong.
———–
I am scratching my head over this. First, Mormonism has never held a position of inerrancy. Of any religion, next to Catholicism, we are the most open about using or not using the Bible. Second, I continue to be perplexed at the double standard in calling one side of a disagreement “apologetics” and the other side something else. Those who loudly disagree with Mormonism have just as much as stake in defending their position as those they criticize do. Using “apologist” as a pejorative is a double edged sword made even sharper when the critic is shown to be oblivious to such an elementary definition. If the critic cannot even be relied upon to describe himself, of what worth is his opinion on others?
All you have told me with your disclaimer is that you think there is some special magic to the Bible that can be used against your opponent. All religions have a canon within a canon…we all pick and choose what we will use and what we will ignore. When I see this methodology it only informs me as to the worldview of its user. It tells me nothing about the topic under discussion.
Apologetics is a brave new world. LDS are coming out of top rated schools with degrees relevant to religion at an accelerated rate. The irony is in seeing counter-Mormon scholars (somewhat of an oxymoron) working with a fundamentalist ministry putting out anti-BOM videos while the LDS scholars are doing internationally recognized scholarship. Everyone will soon ascend or descend to their level of competence as the bar is raised by the growing interest in Mormon Studies programs in non-lDS universities.
Anti-polygamy rhetoric becomes tiresome very quickly and begins to take on a disturbing mysogenistic taint when the women who supported it are continually discounted and silenced. I refer to those who do so as the champions of dead dumb Mormon women. A prime example of this is the wivesofjosephsmith website which cherry-picks negative comments from women who actually supported polygamy. This is shocking. It reminds me of the days when women were not considered capable of sitting on a jury…or even testifying. In this day and age we still have those who will silence these women. For whatever reason, and it seems quite consistent that they claimed to have a spiritual witness, they lived the polygamist lifestyle. Give them their due! Allow them their choice and let them speak for themselves. I cannot even comprehend why they did this. It is painful to me to even contemplate the unmarried young women giving up the joys of courting to live under a secret marriage. But it was their choice, not mine.
As for the BY era, I find the breathless tabloid stories of satanic abuse ridiculous when Utah became the destination of the nation for quickie divorces. If a New Yorker could find their way in and out of Utah for a quick divorce, I think any Utahn could as well.
There is really not much to be said after the expression of the moral outrage
of the enlightened from their 21st century perch. So what these polygamy discussions invariably devolve into is a rather strange ritual of breast beating and lamentations on behalf of these dumb and dead Mormon women. We rarely hear any attempt to analyze and understand. It is beyond tiresome.
Juliann, you’ve raised an interesting point — most people don’t know that 19th-century Mormons had a much higher divorce rate than other 19th-century Americans. While a large number of people were evidently happy enough (or conceivably coerced enough) under polygamy to stay married, a reasonably large number evidently weren’t. At least, that’s my understanding of what the divorce data probably mean.
I agree completely that it’s best to let people from the time speak. As I understand it from the modest number of primary sources that I’ve read, Mormons under polygamy, both male and female, understood it as necessary for exaltation. Whether they were happy with their marital arrangements or not, having the level of faith necessary to endure the kind of legal harrassment that they went through is really noteworthy. I mean, not just everybody would be willing to take that kind of a beating for their beliefs about God’s will. It’s impressive, really.
One should add that I think Brigham encouraged a rather liberal divorce policy, perhaps in part to help deal with some of the unhappiness in polygamous marriages. I tend to think that the practice, especially as conducted in late 19th century Mormonism, is inherently difficult and especially for the women sad. However I think Juliann is completely correct. Everyone had their eyes open in this. It was a real struggle for most involved. While I think women suffered more in the practice, both sexes had to exercise a lot of faith in it. Further some of its biggest apologists were women.
So I think Juliann is quite right that some approaches to the topic are rather patronizing at best.
Once again Zina Huntington, who probably had to face more struggles over the practice than anyone else, also was extremely faithful and one of the great leaders of the church. She certainly had far more faith than I would have in similar circumstances.
Juliann said it confused him that I made a comment about my stance on the Bible. He also said,
• Using “apologist” as a pejorative is a double edged sword made even sharper when the critic is shown to be oblivious to such an elementary definition.
For what it’s worth, I am far from the expert that I see in “Dr. Lee Ahona” on the podcast at this link:
http://thechurchisnottrue.com/files/NOT-2005-10-08.mp3
But I don’t care to try to say, “I know the Bible is correct.” Just because I say this, does not imply that I am trying to take myself away from the critic arena. Of course I am criticizing the church. (By the way, I give it one half-star out of a 10-star rating system . . . or a BIG THUMBS DOWN!) So, am I a critic? YES SIREE! All I am doing by including that disclaimer about the Bible, is making sure some of the people who wish I would criticize the Bible as much as the BOM, they can know that I don’t take a stand on the Bible at all. I don’t care to do that right now.
Juliann went on to say:
• Apologetics is a brave new world. LDS are coming out of top rated schools with degrees relevant to religion at an accelerated rate. The irony is in seeing counter-Mormon scholars (somewhat of an oxymoron) working with a fundamentalist ministry putting out anti-BOM videos while the LDS scholars are doing internationally recognized scholarship. Everyone will soon ascend or descend to their level of competence as the bar is raised by the growing interest in Mormon Studies programs in non-lDS universities.
This could well be the most laughable thing I’ve heard for some time. A lot of credit is due there, because I laugh a lot! Quite a bit of LOUD LAUGHTER, if you will. Even of the LDS church’s “annointed.” It’s fun, you should give it a try.
Seriously though, can you IMAGINE what the world would be doing if there was even one shred of an iota of a sinew in someone’s body, who would call themselves credible, that thought it was possible that there was an actual text written by Abraham on the earth today? This patriarch is noted as such a central figure in so many different religions. If it were possible to have a text that showed he was walking around Egypt, wouldn’t the whole world be gathering around? If credible theologians, and scholars, and historians, and anthropologists thought that Abraham could have taught and wrote the things that are in the POGP, again I ask, wouldn’t the whole world be gathering around? Of course the world is not. In fact, the Smithsonian gave it back to the church, and they walked back home, holding the papyri in their hands, with their TAILS between their legs. BYU has the stuff Juliann. THEY HAVE THE PAPYRUS STUFF! Again, I repeat, THEY HAVE IT!!! And the scholarly world couldn’t give a rat’s phallus about the whole thing! (You’ve got to admit, that was silly! A rat’s phallus?!?! LOL.)
And to think about what the BOM claims regarding what happened with Mesoamerican lands. Where’s the evidence? The theological world, as well as the scientific world, would be SWARMING around this kind of stuff!
The Book of Abraham alone, Juliann, is so mind-boggling in its claims. There’s just no getting around the fact that, everyone who isn’t Mormon, KNOWS.
So regarding the scholarly world — the massive human effort that God gave brains to think with – they’ve come to an entirely different conclusion! The difference is this other side has ample evidence to back up the conclusion.
My conclusion: (Drum roll please . . . )
The book of Abraham IS GIBBERISH!
There is simply no proof that it is anything but, exactly what JOSEPH SAID IT WASN’T. It was NOT written, “by his own hand upon papyrus.” What was Joseph’s purpose with it? Well, speculation is easy to make. Perhaps it was to calm thoughts of followers about Joseph’s recently initiated temple stuff, polygamous activities, or high-priesthood claims. Who cares? I suppose it actually tried to prove that God commanded polygamy, which he never did.
The book of Abraham does do one thing for anyone who isn’t Mormon, and that is, helps them chuckle a bit. The entire theological, as well as scholarly world, around and outside of Mormonism, sees the zit on the church’s nose. AND IT’S A BIG ONE!
Some inside the camp walls can not see it. Maybe one day the zit will pop. Whever I can put a plug for the movie, THE VILLAGE, I slip it in. You should see it! It’s a masterpiece.
The retroactive “revelations” Joseph placed within his church are DAMNING!
Juliann – good luck in your journey.
A quick question I have for you . . . (or shall I call it a test of your faith? or a test of your blindfold?):
• Would you give your 14 – 17 year old daughter as a polygamous wife to the “prophet”?
• Or would this be the final key for God to help you see that it’s not what it claimed to be?
Do I have a preconceived feeling about what kind of category I place you in regarding your answer? Yes I do. In other words, are you damned if you do, and damned if you don’t! Funny to use the word “damned.” Joseph would have said so! LOL. Well, you seemed to place me well within the critic category while praising Mormon apologists. If you can categorize me, then I can categorize you too, I suppose. So, if in any way, you say that you’d be okay with giving up your under-aged child, to have sex with an old man, I point you to the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints
Yes, phallus is a really funny word. Excuse me if I only speak to the grown-ups, Hyrum.
Juliann -
Excuse me if I only speak for grownups who don’t have to make excuses for pedophiles!
-Hyrum
Now we’ve just resorted to name calling! LOL!
I say . . .
Let’s follow Lynch’s advice, don’t worry about the messenger, just deal with the content!
So, Juliann, what’s your answer. Would you give your kid over to the prophet, to be “married”?
-Hyrum
I mean, not just everybody would be willing to take that kind of a beating for their beliefs about God’s will. It’s impressive, really.
———–
I find this intriguing as well. It is impossible to have any kind of meaningful dialogue on an open board as has been so well demonstrated here. I do not think we will ever understand the “why”. That it is so repellent to our modern (and modern always means superior) minds makes it even more impossible. However, I do have hopes that enough competent people will enter the fray that we can at least begin to unravel the “how”. I borrowed these quotes from Dan Bachman:
—
Also at odds with the fictional portrayal of the practice is the fact that in 1852, the same year that polygamy was publicly announced as a principle, Utah passed a divorce statute “that provided women much more control over their lives than was given by any other divorce statute of the nineteenth century, save only that of Indiana.” [Louis Kern, An Ordered Love: Sex Roles and Sexuality in Victorian Utopia--the Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), 191.] In an 1861 address, Brigham Young stated that “when a woman becomes alienated in her feelings and affections from her husband, it is his duty to give her a bill and set her free.” Even more surprisingly, he claimed that for a husband to continue cohabiting with such a wife was tantamount to fornication. [Richard S. Van Wagoner, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1986) 92-93.] Such opinions were clearly not meant merely for show. During his presidency, Young granted 1,645 divorces. [Ibid., 91. Also see Eugene E. Campbell and Bruce L. Campbell, "Divorce Among Mormon Polygamists: Extent and Explanations," Utah Historical Quarterly 46 (winter 1978): 4-23.]
The Viper on the Hearth: Mormons, Myths, and the Construction of Heresy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 144.
Comparative studies [Munsterite Christian polygamists)may be of use, as well:
“These considerations may make it easier to understand the contention in the present study that women fared no worse (and indeed better) under the Munsterites and Mormons than under the usual monogamous (but just as patriarchal) regime of the age. Indeed, they were better treated if we leave aside the controversial sexual issue. In Munster, they collaborated with the men in the war effort. In Utah, they were given education, the vote and work. It is a curious instance of a movement producing effects opposite to those intended. And women certainly were not subjected to the degradation common in many factories and mines at the time. The fact is that the battle between polygamists and monogamists is a false issue which disappeared as soon as an objective way out of the sexual impasse began to be adopted in the form of easier divorce, birth control and the raising of women’s educational levels and of their rights. If the Christian polygamists are regarded dispassionately in this light, it becomes possible, as we have argued, to review the conclusions of even distinguished scholars and to make sense of what appears to be merely a series of unconnected bursts of irrationalism.”
(p 222)
John Cairncross, After Polygamy Was Made a Sin: The Social History of Christian Polygamy. (London:Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974).
Thanks for that. The possibilities regarding why the divorce empowerment to women are ample. Perhaps it was just that the Mormon men wanted to pass them around like cattle. Wasn’t there an apostle who said something to that affect? Or maybe they did want to give women more choice, regarding such a wierd “gospel principle.” We’ll never know.
So . . . back to the question.
Juliann, would you give up your teenage child to be a polygamous wife?
“It is impossible to have any kind of meaningful dialogue on an open board as has been so well demonstrated here.”
I think it’s possible. I sort of know you both, and know you’re both sincere guys.
I think that through identity, and setting a proper tone (of respect) we can get there.
“I think that through identity, and setting a proper tone (of respect) we can get there.”
Yes, we can see what *kind* of poster consistantly violates that principle. There is nothing about the LDS church or its history so good or progressive that it can’t be swept aside or twisted by its critics.
Ben S, Juliann, and Co.
Dehlin wrote:
Through identity, and setting a proper tone (of respect) we can get there
This is true! Of course, given our identities, we differ in our conclusions, right? That does not mean we should not discuss and ask probing questions all around.
So if you ask me something like:
Are there good things about the church? Absolutely!
The welfare system is mostly set up to do great things.
Is there a percentage of the tithing and fast offerings that goes to help with humantartian aide? Yes!
Did I serve a mission where I saw non-members sporting blankets from a relief effort, in which the “Faith In Every Footstep” saying was imprinted on the blanket? Sure!
You said:
Yes, we can see what *kind* of poster consistantly violates that principle. There is nothing about the LDS church or its history so good or progressive that it can’t be swept aside or twisted by its critics.
I hope we can move away from this sort of thing! The very subtitle of Dehlin’s podcast is, OPEN. HONEST. Let’s be open! So I might be a critic!?!! Let’s move on then, now that that’s established!
Sterling McMurrin was quizzed by McKay about being an atheist, and even given his differing opinions, McKay said he’d stick up for McMurrin if anyone ever tried to excommunicate him!
The way I see it, free flowing talk is what it’s all about!
So . . . I answered some questions here! Can I get a response for my original question? Let’s not avoid it, please! I’m really interested in the response.
Would you give your kid over to the prophet, to be “married”?
-Hyrum
I totally agree w/ open and honest.
Actually…maybe we can tweak it…
“Open, honest, and respectful”…that might be perfect!!!
It could be perfect, John. But it only takes one troll to sink a website. It is a waste of time wading through the debris. I will be listening to more of your podcasts but I think I will skip the posts.
Again, wonderful concept and great interview style.
Would you give your kid over to the prophet, to be “married”?
I think I can guess how this might play out.
Answer: Yes
You are sick and your answer just confirms my opinions of your deranged religion.
Answer: No
So much for your belief in the “prophet.” That you would remain a believer in the face of such a sick request just shows how deranged you and your religion are.
How about this: “Open, honest, and predictable.”
Oh, and nice work, John. I really enjoy your interviews.
Hyrum, let’s play. No, I wouldn’t give my child to a church leader even if he asked. I don’t think polygamy was right. I think it was a terrible mistake.
I also think that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Joseph Smith taught people to come to Christ, and that’s what makes a prophet. I found Christ through Joseph’s work–the Book of Mormon’s Christological lectures were what converted me and made me a Christian.
But the fact that Joseph produced some things that are very important to me doesn’t mean that I accept all of his authority claims. Instead, I choose to take him seriously when he said that he made a lot of mistakes.
I’ve just been listening to part 2. I think when JOhn says, “don’t expect us to be right” he’s saying that people need to take everything with a grain of salt.
“But even at its best, the resolution of doubts by reason and appeal to evidence cannot take us far. It is helpful to meet a brilliant mind who defends gospel truths with fact and logic. There is comfort in finding that such a person has confronted the same questions with which you struggle and has retained his faith. But there is a hazard. Even the most brilliant and faithful person may defend the truth with argument or fact that later proves false. The best scholarship has, at least, incompleteness in it. But even flawless argument has a weakness if you come to depend on it: What happens to the next doubt, or the next? What if no physical evidence or persuasive logic can be produced to dispel it? You will find then what I have found-that faithful scholar who reassured you with logic did not base his faith there. It was the other way around. His faith reassured him that someday, when God told him how it was all done, he would see all truth as perfectly logical, transparently reasonable. In the meantime he was enjoying discovering what he could with the logic he could muster.”
-Elder Henry B. Eyring. To Draw Closer to God, p. 142