Wow, it blows my mind how Peggy Fletcher Stack is never stuck for words...

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1733664-155/plural-marriage-essay-smith-church-joseph

Cabdriver Confession. I checked out the comments section looking for some TBM trollish sorts to needle, but I think they're all making plans to move to Missouri or something...

I shouldn't be so naughty and spiteful, but it's kind of like sitting on a bar stool and arguing. It's a hard habit to break, and at one time in my life I had lots of practice.

I'll cut the Trib some slack because they are putting in a new software platform, and they do appear to be preserving the comments feature. Some are griping about past censorship, but I haven't encountered it. Time will tell.

If the Internet Mormonites show up, I hope people will report back with the best replies; that sort of comedy is way better than anything any of us--even Benson--can make up, and the humor is healing.

Carry on...

At first I thought it was a baby with a bonnet on. I had to look at the enlarged version to see it was an old lady with no teeth and a bonnet on.

The Kimball picture looks like a man in drag. It looks like she has no boobs and i'm not sure what that is on her head.

I hope they look a bit better in the next life.

Well now i gotta click

I finally got the photo gallery to load, and it sure looks to me like they picked the pictures of those women in their dotage for a reason.

Compare them with the pictures of Joseph and Emma...

(have patience on the loading folks; the new software platform was only put on-line yesterday)

I see one TBM, "buzzards" is doing a predictable defense of the faith... BTW, isn't "buzzards" an entry in the Dictionary of Mormon Swearing?

He's claiming they were teaching about JS's polygamy in the seminary in the 1970's... Not having done seminary, I can't speak to that subject. Anyone else?

They make the same claim about Mountain Meadows, and I do have a copy of the textbook used in Utah history classes from the late 1950's until around 1970... No mention of MMM...

Lyin' for the Lord is alive and well.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He's claiming they were teaching about JS's
> polygamy in the seminary in the 1970's... Not
> having done seminary, I can't speak to that
> subject. Anyone else?


Seminary, 1974-1978, every single morning. Never once missed a lesson.

Not a word was said about JS polygamy. Not once.

Seminary and a handful of church history courses at BYU in the 90's...not a single mention of JS's polygamy. BYU professor mentioned all the women that were sealed to Joe after he died, but failed to mention that he was married to dozens while still living.

SL Cabbie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> He's claiming they were teaching about JS's
> polygamy in the seminary in the 1970's... Not
> having done seminary, I can't speak to that
> subject. Anyone else?

Yes, they were teaching about JS's polygamy un the 70's. But they were teaching it, as TSCC does today, as something of utmost beauty and spirituality and the ultimate in sacrifice for the men and the women. They were not teaching it as an outcome of the hormones of a bunch of randy old men who suddenly had hundreds of young women whe were their virtual sex slaves.

The first picture of Kimball Martha McBride Knight Smith looks like Bob Newhart in drag!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2014 05:59PM by moose.

I liked this comment (regarding the periodic release of these essays):

'For me, it's like: "You're still LDS? What if we release *this* clue? Still? How about THIS one?"'

"The same revelation that taught of plural marriage was part of a larger revelation given to Joseph Smith," it explains, "that marriage could last beyond death and that eternal marriage was essential to inheriting the fullness that God desires for his children."

Haha. Yes, church essay ghost writers, let's delve a little more into this "same revelation that taught of plural marriage." No??? Oh, C'mon, you brought it up.

I was criticized and scorned for saying these very things about Joseph Smith in the 1970s. My father said I was speaking for the devil. Does the church speak for the devil now? Thanks, Dad, for being there. I really appreciate your honesty and support. Oh wait, you treated me like garbage when I was right, and you lied your ass off. Never mind the thanks, just keep your goddam mouth shut and FOAD.

Dear Mormon Church:

Please publish an essay explaining why it took you 184 years to confess to Joseph Smith's polygamy.

A - An oversight?

B - Not really important information?

C - Though everyone knew anyway?

D - Afraid no one would be a Mormon if they knew Joseph Smith was such a gross lying lecher and sexual predator?

E - The ex-mormons told everyone.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> E - The ex-mormons told everyone.


F - the truth isn't always useful :)

E, it's been online for decades on familysearch

Is this what you're talking about Cabby?

I saw it today....

smhttp://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1733664-155/plural-marriage-essay-smith-church-josephith-church-joseph



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2014 08:24PM by saucie.

Try this one...

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/1733664-155/plural-marriage-essay-smith-church-joseph

They're up to over 560 now; there were maybe a dozen when I put a couple of posts in...

It's worth it to see the drubbing the faithful are taking with this one. Some have accused the Trib of bigotry when the story is written by a believing Mormon and reported from church sources.

Go figure...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/22/2014 08:28PM by SL Cabbie.

Yay.

A honk of my horn to someone posting this one as "Fannie Algers":

>Now the sequel, "MEET THE REAL MORMONS"

>Rated R

Where the Hell is SkierJim in the reader's comments?


Wonder what Supercilious Laughing Dan has to say on the essay?

SkierJim7 got banned last week. For saying some of the exact same things that the church essay just released. Go figure.

I love this!!!!!!! The mormons would have to be in a coma not to be affected by this article. I think one of my friend is posting to it also.... look for Elder Old Dog....

I did four years of seminary at Salt Lake area schools from 1973 to 1977. I never heard one word about Smith's polygamy.

I do recall when I was about 14 being told by a member of the bishopric (later a stake president and then a mission president) that I should never read "No Man Knows My History" as it would "ruin my testimony". Now, it seems through the essays that TSCC is busily confirming pretty much everything that Fawn Brodie researched and wrote about.

I don't see how anyone could continue to believe after this polygamy essay and its admission that Joe married Helen Mar Kimball "several months before her 15th birthday" (or as we more commonly refer to it -- when she was 14 years old).

TSCC must be desperate to staunch the flow of departing (and formerly) believing members. But, I don't see how this helps. It seems rather to confirm that all of the anti-Mormon propaganda that members have been warned to stay away from is true.

Wow. Just wow.

"or as we more commonly refer to it..." Haha!

innoculation

It mentions this one twice.

" Records of Emma’s reactions to plural marriage are sparse; she left no firsthand accounts, making it impossible to reconstruct her thoughts."

But there are second hand accounts from Emma that infer she considered akin to fornication. Why can't the church use the secondhand sources? Because its incriminating.

"Records of Emma’s reactions to plural marriage are sparse; she left no firsthand accounts, making it impossible to reconstruct her thoughts."

Oh no? Isn't it proof enough that Emma had a fallout with Brigham Young over polygamy, that she apostatized, and later cast her lot with the RLDS Church (which did not practice polygamy)? Isn't it proof enough that she taught her own children that polygamy was of the devil? I think her thoughts were very clear that she was an opponent to polygamy.

"making it impossible to reconstruct her thoughts"........................

.........but apparently it's not impossible to try and reconstruct JS's own thoughts without such firsthand accounts........as long as they excuse his poor behaviour.

Censorship? I just got banned forever. For relating some of the same facts that came out in the essay today. David Self Newlin is their new head censor. Previous employers; D-News & KSL. The takeover is complete.

I don't know what made me more angry yesterday--the essay or having my comment censored by the Trib--censorship in any form has always been my emotional undoing. (It began when I was a writer for LDS Living--look where that censorship catapulted me :-)

<<...and participants were asked to keep their actions confidential.>>

In other words, secret.

Sacred, not secret

Reading that essay leads me to believe that we all may have been too hasty when we assumed Daniel C. Petersen was no longer of any use to the church.

I can almost smell the grease on his fingers with this one . . .

Take a look at the caption.

http://www.sltrib.com/csp/mediapool/sites/sltrib/Pages/gallery.csp?cid=1733664&pid=1915795

The truthful caption would/should be:

"Emma Smith, Joseph Smith's first wife and one of dozens of loves of the Mormon founder's life."

It's hilarious how the lying spin doctor caption writer tried to suggest that Joseph had special romantic feelings for Emma. Just plain hilarious!

... and aligned herself with RLDS along with Joseph Smith's children. Doesn't stop The Church from disrespecting Emma's decisions and plastering her likeness on LDS propaganda.

Will the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church manual be updated to include the polygamous aspect of the many prophets' lives? Those inconvenient truths were left out, at least as recently 2010 when I stopped attending.

Can anyone help me out, here?

Females once had the power of the priesthood, attested to by them laying on of hands and blessing one another. Or not?

Females were once members of the Quorum of the Anointed. Or not?

If women ever had either of these, when and by whom did these rights or privileges get taken away, and did either removal have anything to do with women not wanting to engage in the practice of plural marriage?

Trying to wrap my head around some things I was just told. Please advise.

From what I understand, women never held the priesthood...were never ordained, etc... Women did give and participate in blessings, but this was viewed more as a NT "gift of the spirit" in the early church, not a priesthood ordinance.