Following along with David Stout’s points on skeletons in every closet, I just did a post about Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac. In the words of Rabbi, Yosef Ibn Caspi (Spain, early 14th century), “How could God command such a revolting thing?” Does that cause you to lose faith in Abraham too?

Check out http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/04/02/jewish-muslim-and-academic-perspectives-on-abraham/

I just wanted to comment and let you know that I was one of those persons who was deeply deeply troubled by LDS history. Deeply enough to make me question things. I have since left the LDS chuch and embraced biblical Christianity.

I know many others who have done the same.

I believe for some LDS and former LDS, they can live with the inconsistencies in teachings and docrtrines and not let it get to them, but for some of us it simply is black or white. It’s either true or not, and when I found out about all the Joseph Smith first vision accounts I left. It was that simple for me. If Smith could not get the first vision account strait from the get go, it simply didn’t happen.

I have since found that there is so much JOY outside of Mormonism, that completely elapsed me when I was an active faithful member, missionary and participant.

Jesus is the answer. Not a church or religion. But Jesus.

Once I realized that, that all I had to do was completely place my trust, my heart in the Lamb of God….

Well the rest is history.

God bless,
Gloria

Interestingly enough, I find the more reading I do, the more sympathetic I become to the LDS. Even from the “Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and had a lot of flaws” perspective, your history still comes through as a group of very dedicated people who were willing to make tremendous sacrifices in order to serve God and restore what they believed to be the true gospel.

More than just that, Joseph Smith comes across as a very bright and insightful man who wrestled with many of his day’s big issues and did so in very creative, imaginative (that’s a good thing), and practical ways. He sought to end slavery by reimbursing slave owners (as did Emerson). Had his plan been accepted, the evil of slavery would have been ended without bloodshed and with both north and south sharing in the cost of ending it, even as the (white) nation as a whole prospered from it. In my opinion, this has to be one of the reasons Missouri was so hostile to the Mormon settlers. Mere religious differences would not have produced such animosity.

Smith also sought to address the rise of science and its relationship to faith. The doctrine of eternal progression can be seen as one way to integrate the laws of energy and spirituality. In some ways it might be seen as a precursor to today’s Process Theology. Likewise, the emphasis on personal revelation anticipates Pentecostalism, and the desire to build Zion is laced through with concern for the poor and the establishment of ways to better one’s life in general.

These and other contributions are really quite impressive. As to the negative events, show me any human undertaking that doesn’t have a few skeletons in its closet.

Finally, as to the relationship of faith and historical research, this is a very complex issue that involves epistemology, pre-modern, modern, and post-modern presuppositions, and a variety of other issues. Suffice it to say that history can be used to bolster or undermine any faith tradition.

Perhaps the best way to be fair in one’s use of the discipline is to ask, “If I used the same standards of historical evaluation on my own religion that I would use on someone else’s religion, what would I come up with?” I usually find that question produces a healthier appreciation for both my own and other people’s religious beliefs.

Let’s just hope the polygamy issue doesn’t come up again soon. That will help us keep members in the dark about the truth longer…(mwahahaha). So let’s get back to our ritualistic chant of the Articles of Faith…*place hands ritualistically on elbows* “We believe…”

For what it is worth I do care what Brigham Young said about polygamy and I have prayed earnestly about the whole topic. I am not one that is interested in sharing my husband after I have spent a lifetime getting him to a state where anyone else will even want him (HA HA…just a joke). Seriously though, I think BY said the things he did because he was living and breathing polygamy. If you are living in a way that the Lord commanded you to, what else are you going to believe or even want to believe? If monogamy is truly how it is supposed to be, the contradiction would be too hard to live on a daily basis, so I think he taught that polygamy was the end all be all (how else would he rectify it within himself?) I think if I had to live in the manner that he did, I would look to every possible thing I could to justify and convince myself that it was the best and most satisfying way to live. It was right at that time he lived, but it it is not right now and the Lord has made that clear.

I know that my opinion doesn’t matter much in relation to this, but there you have it.

could there be some set of hypothetical facts egregious enough that you would care?

Yes, and I would be happy to address them if there is ever a thread about that question. For me, this isn’t it.

I also don’t see how it is relevant that very few members believe BY contradicted the BoM. Few members know what Jacob 2 says. Few members know what BY said. Fewer still understand that they do, in fact, contradict one another.

But what I’m trying to understand is why don’t you care? You said you are not one of those guys who just has a testimony and therefore accepts whatever happened in the early days of the church. So, please answer my question from earlier, could there be some set of hypothetical facts egregious enough that you would care?

Church history is a REAL and HARD problem – for those for whom it is a real and hard problem. It isn’t for those for whom it isn’t.

That’s what I was trying to say, and I tried to say it as concisely as I could. I wasn’t trying to dismiss you; I just honestly don’t think most members care about that particular charge. That’s why I added the sentence, “I don’t mean anything by that other than what it says.” I really don’t mean anything else except that I think you are making an argument about which most members don’t care.

Can you see the difference?

If you don’t want to discuss this issue, which you clearly don’t, then why respond at all?

I am trying to ask questions that I am curious about. You might think the questions are a waste of time, but I don’t.

How would you feel if I got on your son’s mission advice post and said, “I just don’t care about your son or his mission.” That would be pretty rude. But you saying that in response to my question is acceptable? I think it’s rude.

What would it take for you to care? Are you of the opinion that it doesn’t matter what JS or BY did or didn’t do? Do you take the position that, “I prayed and I have a testimony, therefore, it is irrelevant what went on in the early days of the Church.”

Or could there be some set of hypothetical facts egregious enough that you would care?

I just don’t care.

I don’t mean anything by that other than what it says.

I certainly have demonstrated plenty. The proclamation to the world, the book of Jacob, the book of Geneis, the Adam and Eve story, all scriptures about cleaving to her (not them), cleaving to his wife (not wives). I think you are a smart guy but please don’t insult me by acting like there isn’t a clearly established proper method of marriage. Polygamy is only right “when commanded by God.” BY taught polygamy was always right. Are you really going to argue this point? Not to mention the absolute lunacy that polygamy could be a better system. God made it so there is very close to the same amount of men and women in the world but I am supposed to believe that He thinks the best way is for certain men to have many wives and other men to have none? Jacob is not vague at all. It is crystal clear. Monogamy is proper and right unless God commands otherwise. So BY saying the romans introduced the heinous practice of monogamy and that sadly, it spread throughout the world is a bad thing, is ridiculous.

I don’t have a problem with BY appealing to history, either. The point is, he made his knowledge of Roman history paramount to the BoM and to common sense and to God’s default preferred method: monogamy.

And I don’t think you’ve demonstrated anything re: the BOM. The BOM passage says nothing about what the ultimate nature of the marital system is. It offers a huge exception (“when I say otherwise”) in fact. Any given time could be argued to be the Lord “saying otherwise.” It’s a vague scripture that, at most, has some tensions with the ROman example.

And I have no prob. w/BY appealing to ROme. Heavens, I’m a historian by trade. That’s what we do. I would have a problem if he made no attempt whatsoever to appeal to history. There’s more to history besides Jacob chpt. 2, after all. Much, much more. To me, BY is showing a more cultivated minds that many LDS I know by bothering to understand the practice in a historical context (and his analysis is not bad, as the scholarship I mentioned shows).

I think it’s pretty safe to say I have clearly established that BY did contradict the BoM. My question is: does this bother you, Russell? Why or why not?

Does this bother any of you? Why or why not?

And please explain further what you meant by “The rhetorical context of 19th-century Mormon thought requires that I take the J o D with almost no weight in terms of doctrinal authority. Their model of revelation functioned differently back then. But that’s another post entirely.”

The beauty of the Journal of Discourses is that you can find a quote for every occasion. Hence the beauty of the Correlation committee…

As I said, I’m not going to dig into all the J o D quotes on polygamy. The rhetorical context of 19th-century Mormon thought requires that I take the J o D with almost no weight in terms of doctrinal authority. Their model of revelation functioned differently back then. But that’s another post entirely.

But let’s just say that I can document just as many quotes indicating that polygamy was a social expedient, that it if men stopped slacking off in their duty to marry, then polygamy wouldn’t be necessary. Obviously all men couldn’t be polygamists, so we can’t believe that 75% of the Church was living in pernicious sin. All of this being “from the pulpit.” If you’re curious about this, you can look at Kathryn Daynes’ award-winning book, More Wives Than One: The Transformation of the Mormon Marriage system.

The Book of Mormon (Jacob chapter 2-I pasted the entire section below) teaches that monogamy is THE correct manner of marriage under God. “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man amoung you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.” And this commandment of the Lord was not limited in time or place. Jacob referenced the days of David and Solomon and stated that it was wrong when they did it, too. He also says, “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.” Clearly, Jacob taught that polygamy is acceptable ONLY WHEN COMMANDED OF THE LORD but that the general rule is that MONOGAMY IS THE CORRECT PRINCIPLE.

This does not contradict the Church’s stance. Generally, the Church has followed monogamy and they only practiced polygamy when commanded to.

HOWEVER, BRIGHAM YOUNG AND OTHERS TAUGHT THAT MONOGAMY WAS A PERNICIOUS EVIL AND THAT POLYGAMY IS THE CORRECT PRINCIPLE ALWAYS, IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO JACOB.

Brigham Young and others teachings’ FROM THE PULPIT:

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome…was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”
- Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202

“Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.”
- The Prophet Brigham Young Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 128

“…the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.”
- Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227

“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire….Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers…. Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s servants have always practiced it. ‘And is that religion popular in heaven?’ it is the only popular religion there,…”
- The Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862

“This law of monogamy, or the monogamic system, laid the foundation for prostitution and the evils and diseases of the most revolting nature and character under which modern Christendom groans,…”
- Apostle Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, page 195

“We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations.”
- Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 291

“I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece.”
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22

“Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife. “
- The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262

I would say God started the practice of monogamy with Adam and Eve. But according to Brigham Young, it was “nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.”

How can this be justified? Jacob (and countless other scriptures) make it painfully clear. Yet Brigham Young, prophet of God, directly contradicts Jacob’s teachings. How do these pieces fit? If he was a prophet and inspired of God and who walked and talked with God how could he be SO wrong? Did he ever read the Book of Mormon? Did he read Jacob? Could he grasp the point Jacob was making? Even if you claim prophets don’t receive revelation often and have to find their way on their own way why isn’t he preaching using the BoM instead of his roman history lessons?

JACOB CHAPTER 2:24-33

24 Behold, David and aSolomon truly had many bwives and concubines, which thing was cabominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a arighteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any aman among you have save it be bone cwife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the achastity of women. And bwhoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up aseed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

Forgetting and History

The quote:

Forgetting, and I would say even historical error, is an essential element in the creation of a nation, and that is why the progress of historical studies is often a danger for the nation itself.

I’m not going to address this beyond this post, mostly so we can avoid a J o D bash.

In any case, no dodge intended! And please do forgive if I have sounded boastful…heavens, I’m certain some could run circles around me. And I certainly don’t find “oddities” to be easily explained. Heavens, I’ve been through the oddities myself and experienced a fair share of heartburn. I just believe that it’s heartburn that needn’t become an ulcer.

So as far as (kind of!) quick answers to a couple questions (some of your questions are worthy of articles, so I’m being blatantly picky):

1) In my view, BY’s record on monogamy should be seen within the context of the time…when the “Victorian Compromise,” which maintained that a person’s private reputation should be valued against the strict adherence to law. Therefore, adultery would be tolerated if one kept up a nice veneer of respectability. And as far as his conclusion about monogamy’s origins, BY was in a sense correct. Walter Scheidel (“Monogamy and Polygyny,” Working Papers) of Stanford argues that in Rome, a similar “compromise” had been formed as far as male ability to philander all while maintaining the whitewashed veneer of “respectable” monogamy. Men could have intercourse with slaves without consequence. Further, polygamy, Scheidel maintains, increased male tensions re: their reproductive inequality in the Roman empire aka “not enough women.” It is noteworthy, Scheidel also argues, that Greek monogamy increased with chattel slavery–thus allowing for the men to have an avenue for extra-marital sexual activity.

As far as contradicting the BOM, BY is only arguing that Roman monogamy has been the source of the ills. Unless you know of another quote, I’m not sure we can conclude too much based on that quote.

2) And re: BY’s feelings towards Christ, I would need to see the quote you are referencing. These are the quotes I am familiar with:

“The best man that ever lived on this earth only just made out to save himself through the grace of God….It requires all the atonement of Christ, the mercy of the Father, the pity of angels and the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ to be with us always, and then to do the very best we possibly can, to get rid of this sin within us, so that we may escape from this world into the celestial kingdom.” J of D 1:303

“The Latter-day Saints believe in the Gospel of the Son of God, simply because it is true. They believe in baptism for the remission of sins, personal and by proxy; they believe that Jesus is the Savior of the world; they believe that all who attain to any glory whatever, in any kingdom, will do so because Jesus has purchased it by his atonement.” J o D 13:328

I’m the one who referenced Brodie’s book and Elder Jensen. You didn’t quite get my quote right. “I wouldn’t be surprised if Jensen has read Brodie’s book.” I don’t think Jensen is encouraging people to read it, but you’re not going to be excommunicated for reading it either.

Now, when Juanita Brooks wrote her book, several of the apostles wanted her excommunicated for the unflattering portrayal of the church, but Pres McKay told them to leave her alone (David O McKay Bio). However, one can’t claim to be a good historian by refusing to read a book solely because it portrays unflattering history. John Dehlin makes the point that some of these older books were quite scandalous at the time, but as time has passed, they may not be so controversial at all. Perhaps the church has thicker skin today, than when Brooks and Brodie’s books were published.

(Remember that shows like “I Love Lucy” wouldn’t show a husband and wife in bed, and now shows considered family-friendly like “The Cosby Show” aren’t afraid to show things more realistically. Society changes, and what was once scandalous, isn’t anymore.)

At the conference I attended at BYU, Ronald Esplin did make a passing remark about Brodie’s book, stating something to the effect that he disagreed with her analysis of Joseph Smith. Well how can Brother Esplin make a remark about her book without reading it? Obviously he has read the book in order to criticize it. I think Nibley, or someone else wrote a book, “No Ma’am, That’s Not History”. Obviously Nibley (or whoever the author was) read Brodie’s book in order to refute it.

I would expect that Elder Jensen, being church historian, would probably have been exposed to both positive and negative church histories. He was also in the room when I attended a paper on William McClellin. The speaker noted that McClellin was an enthusiastic proponent of polygamy, and even sent for a young woman to come join him in Nauvoo. When she discovered McClellin wanted her for the purposes of polygamy, she left the church. Obviously, this is not the most faith-promoting story for LDS people to know about, but Elder Jensen didn’t object at all, and afterwards “encouraged a lifelong commitment to church history.” So, I’m just saying I wouldn’t be surprised if he had been exposed to Brodie.

Jensen would probably recommend Rough Stone Rolling to be read first, but I don’t think a person will get excommunicated simply for reading Brodie’s book. I don’t think Jensen would mind it one bit if more people read Brodie’s book, and disputed her findings. But the average Joe Schmo in the church probably doesn’t have the background to do that.