This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Was Joseph Smith's teaching and practicing of plural marriage (polygamy) considered "heretical" by the traditional Christians of his time? Certainly the practice is well documented in the Bible. As I recall, even today some Arabs legally maintain multiple wives. I think that technically, it is not heresy, but rather a cultural taboo. A law of God was not broken, it was a violation of a social custom. But to the Christians of Joseph Smith's time and place, they considered it heretical. Should it belong in this list? If not, where?
To repeat something I said earlier: Pardon me for injecting a personal viewpoint into this discussion, but it seems to me that if Jesus Christ did call a prophet in modern times to restore his gospel, etc, he would certainly cause a stir among the traditional institutions and make a lot of people very angry. See, for example, Jesus Christ among the Jews. So I have no qualms about emphasizing how much Joseph Smith was, and still is, hated by many people. :) Wadsworth 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1 Timothy 3 could easily have been interpreted to mean that church leaders should be "the husband of one wife." Is the passage alone enough for a reference, or should we find an example of it being used this way? In principle, an example of it being used this way would be better, to avoid this sort of original research, so let me ask this question intead. Would an example of this passage being used to criticize Mormonism in general on doctrinal grounds be a sufficient reference, or would a direct reference to Smith be required? Wesley 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. This is a very interesting discussion, and I apologize in advance of the length of my response. The Strangite site that Wesley points to, discusses instances in the Bible where Polygamy was commanded. I think we can agree that it was commanded by God in some instances (or, according to this source there would be no such thing as Onanism).
A couple of thoughts. Below are the scriptures in question:
The LDS Church leaders have long interpreted these to mean that celebicy was not endorsed by the primitive church.
Looking at [2], the authorized version uses the word translated into "one" in the follwoing ways (note it is not the same "one" as used in describing the Godhead, or the "oneness" of Marriage. Rather it is a term that means "a one" or "another" or "a certain" or "someone" or in some cases "first." But that is just the word.
Alternative translations do and do not agree on the word choice of what to do with "one" in these versus (see [3] and [4] for example).
I did a quick database search of critical statements against the church using the verse, but none are very consistent either. Most come from a Greek interpretation (which is one reason why Wesley, who is Orthodox would interpret this way), rather than a Catholic interpretation, and Protestants are mixed on the useage - except with discussing the "twin relice of barbarism" during the height of the anti-polygamous movement led by Senator Edmunds in the US in the late 1800s.
That said, the argument has been a used by critics - but mostly during the edmunds act and then again in the 1980-present time period. I think that the following statements from Church leaders could be used to show that others challenged in this vein. Here's a couple (bear through them and read my thoughts on the McConkie quote):
Then, from 1890 to present, I can't find much of anyone using this argument, aside from one source during the Smoot hearings.
This one more recent however, allows for the Greek interpretation of the scripture - interestingly enough comes from Bruce R. McConkie. In a footnote to the term "Husband of one wife," he writes the following:
It almost reads that during Paul's time, or by Paul's intstruction, one wife was the law under the church of his time. In any case, the second, and longer source could be used as an example. It does seem to come from an orthodox interpretation.
Sorry Storm and Wesley, I can't find much in the way of critical until the internet era in this vein, and then it seems much more psuedo-academic apologetics, rather than authoritative and sourceable. - Visorstuff 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
On the polygamy page here on wikipedia it gives several quotes by religious leaders. one is from luther saying that a man can have multiple wives because the bible does not forbid it. it also quotes some archbishop or something who was in support of it. it says calvin was opposed to it. real;ly, just check the polygamy page. and to the real question, was it accepted by society at large in smith's own time? the violent reaction to it after it was made public (in 52 after smith's death, i know) would seem to say no.
Jerubaal
06:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well Wadsworth, not sure what you said has to do with the matter at hand, but I agree with you. I wish my Mormon ancestors had had stronger family ties. Despite Mormon pioneer ancestry, my father is a convert. My great-great-great-great grandfather, Ruben (or Reuben, the historical records are unclear) McBride, was the first man baptized for the dead in the font in the Nauvoo Temple. I contrast, my great grandfather left the church and took my 16 year old grandfather with him. To this day my grandpa is antagonistisc towards the church and wasn't even planning on coming to my sister's upcoming temple wedding until my (very authoritarian) sister called him up and gave him an earful. Sadly, most of the McBrides have fallen away from the church. On a vacation to Utah, we had chance encounters with several distant relatives who are no longer members of the church. Well, I'm done talking about that. To keep with the topic of discussion, I don't have any polygamists in my direct ancesty, but I know that my great-grea-great-great uncle, and perhaps a few other 1st degree relatives were.
Wait a minute here folks, remember what I said on Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy when you edit articles. -- Nerd42 13:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone edited the article, bringing this discrepancy up. I reverted the edit. Here is why: [5] Wadsworth 00:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
In the paragraph containing the sentence.....
"Rigdon suffered a severe concussion after being dragged on the ground. According to some accounts, Rigdon was delirious for several days. The reasons for this attack are disputed."
This is the first mention of Sydney Rigdon and yet he is referenced only by his last name. Some other mention of him needs to be made prior to this paragraph or this sentence should be removed.
Anyone else notice someone who doesn't know what NPOV means? -- NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Many of you were screaming of the inaccuracies of one particular scene in the episode, where Joseph Smiths translations were hidden in order to prove him a faker. YES THIS IS TRUE. I will link you to the confirmation from Joseph Smith himself. Preface to 1830 printing of the Book of Mormon So for future reference, don't claim to know something you don't. Thank you, I'll go have my cup of tea now. GameJunkieJim 02:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you guys are debating about, nor what South Park said or didn't say, and have no desire to know. However the info on the preface linked to by Jim the Game Junkie is perfectly legitimate. If you want a more favorable site to cooberate it, behold: http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/10. It's pretty indisputable that there was a fracas involving 116 pages being lost (and yes, WBardwin, they were called the Book of Lehi) and that the 1830 edition did indeed contain an explanatory preface. Many (most?) of the original 5000 copies are still extant and can be checked if you're skeptical beyond all reason. Also, facsimile 1830s editions are sold at temple visitors' centers, LDS historical sites, etc., but I'm not 100% sure whether these contain the original preface (I would imagine they do). So Jim, when you say, "the LDS church generally makes [this original material] difficult to obtain", you are, well... wrong.
Of course, this is not news to most Mormons (other than the preface part), as the sections in the D&C (particularly Section 3) are still intact and the whole story is periodically covered in the Sunday School curriculum. Novel-Technology 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The article states, "In March 1842, Smith was initiated as a Freemason (as an Entered Apprentice Mason on March 15, and Master Mason the next day—the usual month wait between degrees was waived by the Illinois Lodge Grandmaster, Abraham Jonas)". The actual order of Masonic degrees is Entered Apprentice (1st degree), Fellowcraft (2nd degree), and Master Mason (3rd degree). One cannot skip degrees...when was Smith made a Fellowcraft?
Can someone throw a link to Joseph Smith diaries? I heard that he was clarifying a lot of misconceptions about mormon religion, polygamy, Book of Mormon origin, etc right there.
Sincerely, Enormousdude 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of the denominations alluded to in the preceding paragraph do not accept the version of church history put forward by the LDS church that says that Smith taught all of those things. This paragraph needs to be completely rewritten to clarify this. -- NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 17:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem - I would encourage you to keep your point of view, and also to be a bit more open to evidences. It is fine if you consider some things as non-authentic, however, look deeper into who wrote, published and signed of on the doctrine taught. It is a fine line that I'm not sure any historian has mastered - we all have a good deal to learn in that regard. But the more I study certain issues, the more I realize I don't understand the "why's" and in many cases the events, but am left to interpret them as others have done. For example, it is very well documented in several places the Heber C. Kimball story. Where Smith told Heber that the lord wanted Smith to marry Heber's wife, but after Heber agreed to do 'whatever it takes' Smith sealed Heber and his wife for eternity. That can be coraberated by multiple non LDS sources as well as Heber's own accounts. This was done during the height of the polygamy scandals. Historians can say that "evidences" of polygamy were done by Smith to test to see who was true to Smith, they can say that it is evidence that Smith practiced it, they can see it as a teaching opportunity by smith or any countless other viewpoint. I am undecided on what it means, and I take it as an event that occured. The evidence from multiple sources, both in and out of the LDS church and restorationist branches confirm it. I guess my point is lets try to treat more event such as this - there are marriage certificates for polygamous marriages. There are printed sermons that state men can become gods. There are are evidences for the black policy being started by smith, but they are evidences only and there are just as many evidences against. Each on both sides should be stated as such, rather than placing our own world view and interpreting the events in this forum. That is the job of religions and the various denominations. Wikipedia is not that place. Hope this makes sense - not trying to change your point of view, but am thinking we can all do a better job of sticking to the facts, rather than the interpretation thereof. -Visorstuff 19:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The Restoration Branches confirm what? That some people got together and signed a paper saying Joseph was married to so-and-so? Nobody disputes that. It's Smith's own involvement and/or consent that is disputed. Nobody disputes whether an event occured "by proxy", only whether Smith himself taught, said or did certain things. -- NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 18:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Visorstuff seems to be removing the explanation that "polygyny is a form of polygamy". I see no reason to do this. The statement is certainly true, and polygyny is not a well-known word, whereas polygamy is. Why should we not explain this word to our readers? DJ Clayworth 16:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hoboken, I'm well aware of what transubstantiation is - and unless you've studied Catholic/early Christian history more than I have, I doubt you have a better understanding - let's simply not go there. I used it as an example of an early christian teaching that received similar scrutiny as the polygamy/polygyny debate - as it was used as a justification to kill early christians. Suffice it to say, even some church fathers said that with communion, you are literally eating the flesh of Christ and in some cases used derivitives of the canibbalistic concept to describe it. You can read arguments on this elsewhere on you own time (although I would suggest the council of trent as a starting point.
My point is that many Mormons find the term Polygamy offensive and not descriptive of what Smith taught. Yes it has been used historically, but it is not accurate as to what smith taught. I find the term polygamy offensive and too broad and not descriptive enough for an encyclopedia that is trying to be accurate. None of the new mormon historians - from Jan Shipps to the Tanners currently use polygamy to my knowledge - they also have adopted the individual terms.
Smith taught that men could have more than one wife. Look back at his teachings. He didn't teach women should have more than one husband. Was polyandry practiced? Yes, but he did not teach it. BIG difference. As I mentioned before, you should study this debate out a bit more before going down this path. It hurts (slows down) readability (see comprehension) to every time (meaning instance) the word polygyny (a form of polygamy) is written to immmediately (directly after) add "a form of polygamy." People are not idiots. Once polygyny is mentioned in an article as a form of polygamy, we don't need to do it again. We may as use the phrase "Mormons, which are adherents to the Book of Mormon" every time we use the word Mormon.
You wrote: ""Transubstantiation" is not a subclass of "cannibalism", it's a doctrine regarding the nature of the materials of the eucharist." In exactly the same vein, Plural marriage is not a subclass of polygamy - it is a doctrine about marriage in which the practice of polygyny, a form of polygamy is utilized. Please go back and read the previous debates rather than me even beginning to address them here. - Visorstuff 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
How about if we go back and hash out the same stuff in the archives. There is enough evidence to dispute if Smith even practiced multiple marriages - see for example the debate at Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy. So lets go with actual sources and evidence and get this cleared up. The only example we have of Smith's words teaching polygamy is D&C 132 [6] (and that is even disputable, as it was "made public" in 1852, 8 years after Smith's death). The examples of sealings to more than one women were done in some cases the same day as Smith was sealed as "father" to male church leaders including Brigham Young and others. Since he was sealed as a father to Young, and only sealed to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs on the same day, we are left to judge that it was or was not a marriage sealing or a daughter to father sealing. Zina claimed later that it was a marriage sealing, however, if you can produce a marriage licence or certificate such as is available for non-married women that Smith married, that would be new ground. Do I believe that they were married? Probably so, but there is enough to doubt the evidence. Certificates exist for Elixa Roxcy Snow, but not for women who were concurrently married. And then there is the Helen Mar Kimball debate. She is listed as a wife, was treated as a wife, but denied that she was married to him, but that she was sealed to him - but not as a wife. This is a discussion that I've had with Todd Compton, the person who probably knows more about it than anyone else in the world. We cannot prove anymore than Smith taught Polygyny and the law of adoption - where people can be sealed to others for eternity as a father/mother relationship in order to keep the sealing line unbroken [7]. We can surmize that other forms of polygamy were practiced, but there is only circumstantial and non-contemporary evidence for it. So, if you have proof that smith practiced other forms of polygamy, then lets include it. If not, lets stick with the more exact term, and to the actual evidence provided in D&C 132 and the available facts. If you want go and rehash all of these already-decided upon arguments, lets go back to the actual facts. These are some the "historical" reasons I was discussing above - the evidence is circumstantial and very "he said, she said" in nature. It would never hold up in a court of law, let alone other forums. If you want to be a historian, you've got to be exact and supported by the facts. In this case, we are on shaky ground, hence the use of the term. I've studied the primary documents, and doubt you have. The term should be polygyny which is why the sentence is phrased as it is.
Trodel, I like your compromise. You are correct with the amount of times the word "polygamy" shows up in the article, its not hiding the fact, but trying to be more precise about what type he did teach. - Visorstuff 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with Tijuana Brass. Hoboken, we could use the help with content if you are willing. By the way - Jan Shipps is one that is big into terminology. Her usage and distinguishing of terms is much more exact especially in cases about polygyny (as opposed to polygamy), Latter Day Saint (as opposed to Latter-day Saint and more is what we've sort of adopted on wikipedia as she is a trusted non-Mormon Mormonism historian (I belive she is methodist). If you want to go down the terminology path, lets use the terminology Smith used in D&C 132 to be the most accurate from a doctrinal perspective, so we don't interpret if it was polygyny or polyandry or whatever. Might as well use direct quotes as it has been done in other places on the wiki when it gets heated. Let's then use his terminology. This way Polygamy, Polygyny, Polyandry nor Plural marriage won't be used, but marriage would be similar terms that would describe it just as clearly.
The fact remains that smith taught plural marriage and evidence of polyandry as well as polygyny could be interpreted multiple ways depending on the historian. Hence Comptons 33 number. My count is in the mid-twenties (note that I don't cite my own research), and the church's official is is even lower (I believe 20?). Then you have Brodie who places the number near 50. Each historian has to guess as marriage certificates exisst in some cases, but not in many, if not most others. The evidence of polyandry is even less when you consider that by definition polyandry would have to include sexual relations (by its very definition) - obviously in most of Smith's cases it did not, by admission of the sealed/wives. We could go on, but won't. Please continue to add content, the compromise at present is fine. The doctrinal foundation is multiple wives, not multiple husbands as demonstrated above. Lets move on to better things - thanks for the reminder Tijuana Brass. - Visorstuff 06:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that "polygyny" is not the only intrepretation given to Smith's practice of polygamy. Representing it as the only possible conclusion, as the article currently does, is a substantial misrepresentation, and is misinformative. Since it is only one point of view, it must be attributed to someone, and other significant points of view, such as Compton's (and every real historian who's looked at the question!), need to be included in the article. I leave it to you to add the citation to someone who has characterized Smith's practice of polygamy as "polygyny". I suspect part of the problem here has been a concentration on dogma rather than practice. As for further help with content, it would be more likely if changes that should be completely non-controversial didn't have to be fought over. (BTW, the idea that polyandry must involve sexual relations is mistaken, and would, even were it correct, apply equally to polygyny. All the more reason to use the term polygamy, which clearly refers to marriage.) - Hoboken 09:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Editor, ANON 68.91.80.153, insists on deleting material from Bushman that must contradict their POV. On WIKI we strive for balance. Brodie is no more an "expert" historian than every other historian that is quoted and used as a refernece. ANON, you may want to do some reserach on Brodie's work and her methods. She wrote for a specific, conciously stated objective: to disprove Joseph Smith's statements of his history. She openly ignored all information and data that disproved her POV. She is still valued, but all scholars take her work for what it is, a one sided exposé. Storm Rider (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Reading the introductory paragraph was becoming painful. What had started as a concise comma-delimited list of controversial doctrines turned into a monster. :) Hopefully this list will allow easier assimilation of the concepts enumerated. What do you guys think? Wadsworth 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I took this out - as this is too broad of a statement - as not all members of his family did not support Strang. And the support of strang varied over time - couldn't think of a good way to summarize it so I thought I would mention my concerns here in case someone wants to take another stab at summarizing that. Trödel 23:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The succession boxes are screwed up. Joseph Smith III cannot succeed in 1860, a man who died in 1838. There should be some way to fix this and make it sensible. Did Joseph Smith III split off another split ? As it is, it's confusing. Wjhonson 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit annoying to see three different forms of citation used. I've changed several to the "ref" form to make the article look better, and not have a cite [5] followed by a cite [11]. Wjhonson 15:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following sentence:
This kind of sentence definitely need to be referenced to be kept in the article. The sentence is written to sound as if old Joe, Dad and brother (which one?) got together in the evening set up shop gazing into crystals. Sort of like a traveling freak show a la Smith family. Enough with an attempt at levity.
I have never read or heard an allegation that Joseph or his father put in together to "work" crystals together or at the same time. I have read, it seems like in Bushman's book, where Joseph Sr. did have dreams or visions, but off hand I don't recall a crystal. I get the impression that someone has melded thoughts together and created whole cloth. Let's substantiate and then either permanently delete it or re-insert it with references. Storm Rider (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
We have a mixture of m:Cite.php and Template talk:Harvard reference here on this page - I think we should pick one and use it througout the article. My personal preference would be to leave the Reference section as is, merge it with the Bibliography section, and then use footnotes to refer to cites in the biblography as in the example below:
Joseph Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont (what is today South Royalton), the fourth surviving child of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. After attempting to establish roots in various towns in Vermont, but being forced out by three successive years of crop failures, [1] the Smith family settled in western New York, and began working a farm just outside the border of the town of Palmyra. [2] In town, the family opened a "cake and beer shop", where the adolescent Joseph sometimes worked selling concessions at local Palymra events. [3]
References
Bibliography
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help).That way we can use the good alphabetical bibliography and easily reference the specific cites. It also follows a more scholarly approach. -- Trödel 19:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted the article to delete the following paragraph:
I have added the references above to further clarify how to make this acceptable. First, D&C 111:4 reads, "And it shall come to pass in due time that I will agive this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours." This section has to do with Salem, Massachusetts where the Joseph and others went in the hopes of finding individuals capable of assisting the indebted church at the time. It was not a successful trip and they returned to their homes. Section 111 has nothing to do with polygamy. I suspect that this is information is taken from an uninformated source. That does not mean the information is not valid, but it does mean proper referencing will be needed. Further, make sure this information is not already covered in the article; I suspect it is. Storm Rider (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
(Additional comments copied from my talk page.) I noted your recent additions/edits to the Joseph Smith article and briefly read your note on the discussion page. I suspect your edit will be again reverted, not necessarily because you are adding inappropriate material, but because of some of the limitations of the Joseph Smith article. Some reasons below:
I didn't question your Wikipedia habits, and you needn't be defensive about them. If you don't have time to edit Wikipedia, that's fine. What I would prefer is that you not "revert" when you have no time to explain your rationale: that's simply rude. As for the fact that discussions are reheld, and never closed, that's a consequence of an open-format, so I suppose you'll have to adjust. Now, as to your actually pertinent points: the correct (chronological) place to present Smith's polygamy is when it occurred, not when it was discovered. The decidedly minority viewpoint that Smith didn't practice polygamy is certainly already given its due. (We don't say "Some say the earth revolves around the sun, but others disagree", but "The earth revolves around the sun. Some people don't believe this." With regard to Stormrider, "polygamy" is both accurate, and the term adopted by historians, and therefore the one Wikipedia must (and does) use. - Denovo 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Was Joseph Smith's teaching and practicing of plural marriage (polygamy) considered "heretical" by the traditional Christians of his time? Certainly the practice is well documented in the Bible. As I recall, even today some Arabs legally maintain multiple wives. I think that technically, it is not heresy, but rather a cultural taboo. A law of God was not broken, it was a violation of a social custom. But to the Christians of Joseph Smith's time and place, they considered it heretical. Should it belong in this list? If not, where?
To repeat something I said earlier: Pardon me for injecting a personal viewpoint into this discussion, but it seems to me that if Jesus Christ did call a prophet in modern times to restore his gospel, etc, he would certainly cause a stir among the traditional institutions and make a lot of people very angry. See, for example, Jesus Christ among the Jews. So I have no qualms about emphasizing how much Joseph Smith was, and still is, hated by many people. :) Wadsworth 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1 Timothy 3 could easily have been interpreted to mean that church leaders should be "the husband of one wife." Is the passage alone enough for a reference, or should we find an example of it being used this way? In principle, an example of it being used this way would be better, to avoid this sort of original research, so let me ask this question intead. Would an example of this passage being used to criticize Mormonism in general on doctrinal grounds be a sufficient reference, or would a direct reference to Smith be required? Wesley 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. This is a very interesting discussion, and I apologize in advance of the length of my response. The Strangite site that Wesley points to, discusses instances in the Bible where Polygamy was commanded. I think we can agree that it was commanded by God in some instances (or, according to this source there would be no such thing as Onanism).
A couple of thoughts. Below are the scriptures in question:
The LDS Church leaders have long interpreted these to mean that celebicy was not endorsed by the primitive church.
Looking at [2], the authorized version uses the word translated into "one" in the follwoing ways (note it is not the same "one" as used in describing the Godhead, or the "oneness" of Marriage. Rather it is a term that means "a one" or "another" or "a certain" or "someone" or in some cases "first." But that is just the word.
Alternative translations do and do not agree on the word choice of what to do with "one" in these versus (see [3] and [4] for example).
I did a quick database search of critical statements against the church using the verse, but none are very consistent either. Most come from a Greek interpretation (which is one reason why Wesley, who is Orthodox would interpret this way), rather than a Catholic interpretation, and Protestants are mixed on the useage - except with discussing the "twin relice of barbarism" during the height of the anti-polygamous movement led by Senator Edmunds in the US in the late 1800s.
That said, the argument has been a used by critics - but mostly during the edmunds act and then again in the 1980-present time period. I think that the following statements from Church leaders could be used to show that others challenged in this vein. Here's a couple (bear through them and read my thoughts on the McConkie quote):
Then, from 1890 to present, I can't find much of anyone using this argument, aside from one source during the Smoot hearings.
This one more recent however, allows for the Greek interpretation of the scripture - interestingly enough comes from Bruce R. McConkie. In a footnote to the term "Husband of one wife," he writes the following:
It almost reads that during Paul's time, or by Paul's intstruction, one wife was the law under the church of his time. In any case, the second, and longer source could be used as an example. It does seem to come from an orthodox interpretation.
Sorry Storm and Wesley, I can't find much in the way of critical until the internet era in this vein, and then it seems much more psuedo-academic apologetics, rather than authoritative and sourceable. - Visorstuff 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
On the polygamy page here on wikipedia it gives several quotes by religious leaders. one is from luther saying that a man can have multiple wives because the bible does not forbid it. it also quotes some archbishop or something who was in support of it. it says calvin was opposed to it. real;ly, just check the polygamy page. and to the real question, was it accepted by society at large in smith's own time? the violent reaction to it after it was made public (in 52 after smith's death, i know) would seem to say no.
Jerubaal
06:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Well Wadsworth, not sure what you said has to do with the matter at hand, but I agree with you. I wish my Mormon ancestors had had stronger family ties. Despite Mormon pioneer ancestry, my father is a convert. My great-great-great-great grandfather, Ruben (or Reuben, the historical records are unclear) McBride, was the first man baptized for the dead in the font in the Nauvoo Temple. I contrast, my great grandfather left the church and took my 16 year old grandfather with him. To this day my grandpa is antagonistisc towards the church and wasn't even planning on coming to my sister's upcoming temple wedding until my (very authoritarian) sister called him up and gave him an earful. Sadly, most of the McBrides have fallen away from the church. On a vacation to Utah, we had chance encounters with several distant relatives who are no longer members of the church. Well, I'm done talking about that. To keep with the topic of discussion, I don't have any polygamists in my direct ancesty, but I know that my great-grea-great-great uncle, and perhaps a few other 1st degree relatives were.
Wait a minute here folks, remember what I said on Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy when you edit articles. -- Nerd42 13:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Someone edited the article, bringing this discrepancy up. I reverted the edit. Here is why: [5] Wadsworth 00:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
In the paragraph containing the sentence.....
"Rigdon suffered a severe concussion after being dragged on the ground. According to some accounts, Rigdon was delirious for several days. The reasons for this attack are disputed."
This is the first mention of Sydney Rigdon and yet he is referenced only by his last name. Some other mention of him needs to be made prior to this paragraph or this sentence should be removed.
Anyone else notice someone who doesn't know what NPOV means? -- NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Many of you were screaming of the inaccuracies of one particular scene in the episode, where Joseph Smiths translations were hidden in order to prove him a faker. YES THIS IS TRUE. I will link you to the confirmation from Joseph Smith himself. Preface to 1830 printing of the Book of Mormon So for future reference, don't claim to know something you don't. Thank you, I'll go have my cup of tea now. GameJunkieJim 02:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea what you guys are debating about, nor what South Park said or didn't say, and have no desire to know. However the info on the preface linked to by Jim the Game Junkie is perfectly legitimate. If you want a more favorable site to cooberate it, behold: http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/10. It's pretty indisputable that there was a fracas involving 116 pages being lost (and yes, WBardwin, they were called the Book of Lehi) and that the 1830 edition did indeed contain an explanatory preface. Many (most?) of the original 5000 copies are still extant and can be checked if you're skeptical beyond all reason. Also, facsimile 1830s editions are sold at temple visitors' centers, LDS historical sites, etc., but I'm not 100% sure whether these contain the original preface (I would imagine they do). So Jim, when you say, "the LDS church generally makes [this original material] difficult to obtain", you are, well... wrong.
Of course, this is not news to most Mormons (other than the preface part), as the sections in the D&C (particularly Section 3) are still intact and the whole story is periodically covered in the Sunday School curriculum. Novel-Technology 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The article states, "In March 1842, Smith was initiated as a Freemason (as an Entered Apprentice Mason on March 15, and Master Mason the next day—the usual month wait between degrees was waived by the Illinois Lodge Grandmaster, Abraham Jonas)". The actual order of Masonic degrees is Entered Apprentice (1st degree), Fellowcraft (2nd degree), and Master Mason (3rd degree). One cannot skip degrees...when was Smith made a Fellowcraft?
Can someone throw a link to Joseph Smith diaries? I heard that he was clarifying a lot of misconceptions about mormon religion, polygamy, Book of Mormon origin, etc right there.
Sincerely, Enormousdude 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of the denominations alluded to in the preceding paragraph do not accept the version of church history put forward by the LDS church that says that Smith taught all of those things. This paragraph needs to be completely rewritten to clarify this. -- NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 17:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem - I would encourage you to keep your point of view, and also to be a bit more open to evidences. It is fine if you consider some things as non-authentic, however, look deeper into who wrote, published and signed of on the doctrine taught. It is a fine line that I'm not sure any historian has mastered - we all have a good deal to learn in that regard. But the more I study certain issues, the more I realize I don't understand the "why's" and in many cases the events, but am left to interpret them as others have done. For example, it is very well documented in several places the Heber C. Kimball story. Where Smith told Heber that the lord wanted Smith to marry Heber's wife, but after Heber agreed to do 'whatever it takes' Smith sealed Heber and his wife for eternity. That can be coraberated by multiple non LDS sources as well as Heber's own accounts. This was done during the height of the polygamy scandals. Historians can say that "evidences" of polygamy were done by Smith to test to see who was true to Smith, they can say that it is evidence that Smith practiced it, they can see it as a teaching opportunity by smith or any countless other viewpoint. I am undecided on what it means, and I take it as an event that occured. The evidence from multiple sources, both in and out of the LDS church and restorationist branches confirm it. I guess my point is lets try to treat more event such as this - there are marriage certificates for polygamous marriages. There are printed sermons that state men can become gods. There are are evidences for the black policy being started by smith, but they are evidences only and there are just as many evidences against. Each on both sides should be stated as such, rather than placing our own world view and interpreting the events in this forum. That is the job of religions and the various denominations. Wikipedia is not that place. Hope this makes sense - not trying to change your point of view, but am thinking we can all do a better job of sticking to the facts, rather than the interpretation thereof. -Visorstuff 19:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The Restoration Branches confirm what? That some people got together and signed a paper saying Joseph was married to so-and-so? Nobody disputes that. It's Smith's own involvement and/or consent that is disputed. Nobody disputes whether an event occured "by proxy", only whether Smith himself taught, said or did certain things. -- NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 18:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Visorstuff seems to be removing the explanation that "polygyny is a form of polygamy". I see no reason to do this. The statement is certainly true, and polygyny is not a well-known word, whereas polygamy is. Why should we not explain this word to our readers? DJ Clayworth 16:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hoboken, I'm well aware of what transubstantiation is - and unless you've studied Catholic/early Christian history more than I have, I doubt you have a better understanding - let's simply not go there. I used it as an example of an early christian teaching that received similar scrutiny as the polygamy/polygyny debate - as it was used as a justification to kill early christians. Suffice it to say, even some church fathers said that with communion, you are literally eating the flesh of Christ and in some cases used derivitives of the canibbalistic concept to describe it. You can read arguments on this elsewhere on you own time (although I would suggest the council of trent as a starting point.
My point is that many Mormons find the term Polygamy offensive and not descriptive of what Smith taught. Yes it has been used historically, but it is not accurate as to what smith taught. I find the term polygamy offensive and too broad and not descriptive enough for an encyclopedia that is trying to be accurate. None of the new mormon historians - from Jan Shipps to the Tanners currently use polygamy to my knowledge - they also have adopted the individual terms.
Smith taught that men could have more than one wife. Look back at his teachings. He didn't teach women should have more than one husband. Was polyandry practiced? Yes, but he did not teach it. BIG difference. As I mentioned before, you should study this debate out a bit more before going down this path. It hurts (slows down) readability (see comprehension) to every time (meaning instance) the word polygyny (a form of polygamy) is written to immmediately (directly after) add "a form of polygamy." People are not idiots. Once polygyny is mentioned in an article as a form of polygamy, we don't need to do it again. We may as use the phrase "Mormons, which are adherents to the Book of Mormon" every time we use the word Mormon.
You wrote: ""Transubstantiation" is not a subclass of "cannibalism", it's a doctrine regarding the nature of the materials of the eucharist." In exactly the same vein, Plural marriage is not a subclass of polygamy - it is a doctrine about marriage in which the practice of polygyny, a form of polygamy is utilized. Please go back and read the previous debates rather than me even beginning to address them here. - Visorstuff 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
How about if we go back and hash out the same stuff in the archives. There is enough evidence to dispute if Smith even practiced multiple marriages - see for example the debate at Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy. So lets go with actual sources and evidence and get this cleared up. The only example we have of Smith's words teaching polygamy is D&C 132 [6] (and that is even disputable, as it was "made public" in 1852, 8 years after Smith's death). The examples of sealings to more than one women were done in some cases the same day as Smith was sealed as "father" to male church leaders including Brigham Young and others. Since he was sealed as a father to Young, and only sealed to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs on the same day, we are left to judge that it was or was not a marriage sealing or a daughter to father sealing. Zina claimed later that it was a marriage sealing, however, if you can produce a marriage licence or certificate such as is available for non-married women that Smith married, that would be new ground. Do I believe that they were married? Probably so, but there is enough to doubt the evidence. Certificates exist for Elixa Roxcy Snow, but not for women who were concurrently married. And then there is the Helen Mar Kimball debate. She is listed as a wife, was treated as a wife, but denied that she was married to him, but that she was sealed to him - but not as a wife. This is a discussion that I've had with Todd Compton, the person who probably knows more about it than anyone else in the world. We cannot prove anymore than Smith taught Polygyny and the law of adoption - where people can be sealed to others for eternity as a father/mother relationship in order to keep the sealing line unbroken [7]. We can surmize that other forms of polygamy were practiced, but there is only circumstantial and non-contemporary evidence for it. So, if you have proof that smith practiced other forms of polygamy, then lets include it. If not, lets stick with the more exact term, and to the actual evidence provided in D&C 132 and the available facts. If you want go and rehash all of these already-decided upon arguments, lets go back to the actual facts. These are some the "historical" reasons I was discussing above - the evidence is circumstantial and very "he said, she said" in nature. It would never hold up in a court of law, let alone other forums. If you want to be a historian, you've got to be exact and supported by the facts. In this case, we are on shaky ground, hence the use of the term. I've studied the primary documents, and doubt you have. The term should be polygyny which is why the sentence is phrased as it is.
Trodel, I like your compromise. You are correct with the amount of times the word "polygamy" shows up in the article, its not hiding the fact, but trying to be more precise about what type he did teach. - Visorstuff 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with Tijuana Brass. Hoboken, we could use the help with content if you are willing. By the way - Jan Shipps is one that is big into terminology. Her usage and distinguishing of terms is much more exact especially in cases about polygyny (as opposed to polygamy), Latter Day Saint (as opposed to Latter-day Saint and more is what we've sort of adopted on wikipedia as she is a trusted non-Mormon Mormonism historian (I belive she is methodist). If you want to go down the terminology path, lets use the terminology Smith used in D&C 132 to be the most accurate from a doctrinal perspective, so we don't interpret if it was polygyny or polyandry or whatever. Might as well use direct quotes as it has been done in other places on the wiki when it gets heated. Let's then use his terminology. This way Polygamy, Polygyny, Polyandry nor Plural marriage won't be used, but marriage would be similar terms that would describe it just as clearly.
The fact remains that smith taught plural marriage and evidence of polyandry as well as polygyny could be interpreted multiple ways depending on the historian. Hence Comptons 33 number. My count is in the mid-twenties (note that I don't cite my own research), and the church's official is is even lower (I believe 20?). Then you have Brodie who places the number near 50. Each historian has to guess as marriage certificates exisst in some cases, but not in many, if not most others. The evidence of polyandry is even less when you consider that by definition polyandry would have to include sexual relations (by its very definition) - obviously in most of Smith's cases it did not, by admission of the sealed/wives. We could go on, but won't. Please continue to add content, the compromise at present is fine. The doctrinal foundation is multiple wives, not multiple husbands as demonstrated above. Lets move on to better things - thanks for the reminder Tijuana Brass. - Visorstuff 06:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that "polygyny" is not the only intrepretation given to Smith's practice of polygamy. Representing it as the only possible conclusion, as the article currently does, is a substantial misrepresentation, and is misinformative. Since it is only one point of view, it must be attributed to someone, and other significant points of view, such as Compton's (and every real historian who's looked at the question!), need to be included in the article. I leave it to you to add the citation to someone who has characterized Smith's practice of polygamy as "polygyny". I suspect part of the problem here has been a concentration on dogma rather than practice. As for further help with content, it would be more likely if changes that should be completely non-controversial didn't have to be fought over. (BTW, the idea that polyandry must involve sexual relations is mistaken, and would, even were it correct, apply equally to polygyny. All the more reason to use the term polygamy, which clearly refers to marriage.) - Hoboken 09:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Editor, ANON 68.91.80.153, insists on deleting material from Bushman that must contradict their POV. On WIKI we strive for balance. Brodie is no more an "expert" historian than every other historian that is quoted and used as a refernece. ANON, you may want to do some reserach on Brodie's work and her methods. She wrote for a specific, conciously stated objective: to disprove Joseph Smith's statements of his history. She openly ignored all information and data that disproved her POV. She is still valued, but all scholars take her work for what it is, a one sided exposé. Storm Rider (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Reading the introductory paragraph was becoming painful. What had started as a concise comma-delimited list of controversial doctrines turned into a monster. :) Hopefully this list will allow easier assimilation of the concepts enumerated. What do you guys think? Wadsworth 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I took this out - as this is too broad of a statement - as not all members of his family did not support Strang. And the support of strang varied over time - couldn't think of a good way to summarize it so I thought I would mention my concerns here in case someone wants to take another stab at summarizing that. Trödel 23:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The succession boxes are screwed up. Joseph Smith III cannot succeed in 1860, a man who died in 1838. There should be some way to fix this and make it sensible. Did Joseph Smith III split off another split ? As it is, it's confusing. Wjhonson 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a bit annoying to see three different forms of citation used. I've changed several to the "ref" form to make the article look better, and not have a cite [5] followed by a cite [11]. Wjhonson 15:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following sentence:
This kind of sentence definitely need to be referenced to be kept in the article. The sentence is written to sound as if old Joe, Dad and brother (which one?) got together in the evening set up shop gazing into crystals. Sort of like a traveling freak show a la Smith family. Enough with an attempt at levity.
I have never read or heard an allegation that Joseph or his father put in together to "work" crystals together or at the same time. I have read, it seems like in Bushman's book, where Joseph Sr. did have dreams or visions, but off hand I don't recall a crystal. I get the impression that someone has melded thoughts together and created whole cloth. Let's substantiate and then either permanently delete it or re-insert it with references. Storm Rider (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
We have a mixture of m:Cite.php and Template talk:Harvard reference here on this page - I think we should pick one and use it througout the article. My personal preference would be to leave the Reference section as is, merge it with the Bibliography section, and then use footnotes to refer to cites in the biblography as in the example below:
Joseph Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont (what is today South Royalton), the fourth surviving child of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. After attempting to establish roots in various towns in Vermont, but being forced out by three successive years of crop failures, [1] the Smith family settled in western New York, and began working a farm just outside the border of the town of Palmyra. [2] In town, the family opened a "cake and beer shop", where the adolescent Joseph sometimes worked selling concessions at local Palymra events. [3]
References
Bibliography
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help).That way we can use the good alphabetical bibliography and easily reference the specific cites. It also follows a more scholarly approach. -- Trödel 19:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted the article to delete the following paragraph:
I have added the references above to further clarify how to make this acceptable. First, D&C 111:4 reads, "And it shall come to pass in due time that I will agive this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours." This section has to do with Salem, Massachusetts where the Joseph and others went in the hopes of finding individuals capable of assisting the indebted church at the time. It was not a successful trip and they returned to their homes. Section 111 has nothing to do with polygamy. I suspect that this is information is taken from an uninformated source. That does not mean the information is not valid, but it does mean proper referencing will be needed. Further, make sure this information is not already covered in the article; I suspect it is. Storm Rider (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
(Additional comments copied from my talk page.) I noted your recent additions/edits to the Joseph Smith article and briefly read your note on the discussion page. I suspect your edit will be again reverted, not necessarily because you are adding inappropriate material, but because of some of the limitations of the Joseph Smith article. Some reasons below:
I didn't question your Wikipedia habits, and you needn't be defensive about them. If you don't have time to edit Wikipedia, that's fine. What I would prefer is that you not "revert" when you have no time to explain your rationale: that's simply rude. As for the fact that discussions are reheld, and never closed, that's a consequence of an open-format, so I suppose you'll have to adjust. Now, as to your actually pertinent points: the correct (chronological) place to present Smith's polygamy is when it occurred, not when it was discovered. The decidedly minority viewpoint that Smith didn't practice polygamy is certainly already given its due. (We don't say "Some say the earth revolves around the sun, but others disagree", but "The earth revolves around the sun. Some people don't believe this." With regard to Stormrider, "polygamy" is both accurate, and the term adopted by historians, and therefore the one Wikipedia must (and does) use. - Denovo 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)