I think it is to be expected that learning the real history
behind a common understanding will always deflate one’s
opinion of the
propaganda’s subject. Just think of any famous figure you
like: Socrates (bisexual who didn’t provide for his family),
Frederick the Great (pedophile),
Thomas Jefferson (spendthrift, slave owner, probable
fornicator), George Washington (vain, mediocre), etc. People
in general just don’t like the whole picture of just about
anything–they would rather keep things easy and believe only
the good or bad things about someone or something. It makes
life so much easier.

The Church knows this, and therefore tells people only what it
wants them to know about its history. I consider it to be
similar to a woman with a sexually promiscuous past who hides
it from the man she plans to marry. Since the Church thinks
that the most important thing in the universe is saving souls,
it is willing to do what it thinks saving the most souls
requires–even if it means lying or misleading.

If the Church is right about this, then it is certainly not to
blame. Certainly, I think the Church’s approach is bad. The
perspective that interests me most
about the JS and polygamy question is that if he was wrong, on
what
grounds can he be criticized? Mormon grounds or non-Mormon
grounds? What he did was certainly against the law, against
Protestantism, against Catholicism, against conventional
morality, etc. Was it against Mormonism? That’s difficult
for me to say.

Additionally, there is the consideration of the veracity of
books people write about the past. The relevant people are
dead and left only so many records. The record requires
interpretation. Are we certain about anything that happened?
If ‘certainty’ is understood in the professional historians
of our day tend to think of things, then there is certainty
about certain things in the book but not others. However, it
is always difficult to judge the book unless one is familiar
with the same sources the author used, as well as any he
neglected to use. See, for example, the FARMS review that I
attached (an Amazon.com review says that this is the only
negative review).

But let us say that the book is right about JS and polygamy.
What disturbs us about the story? (1) He lied, (2) he married
women secretly, (3) he married the wives of other men, (4) he
married extremely young women, (5) he had sex with at least
some of these women. What is wrong with this if God commanded
it? If God did not command it, but if the rest of Mormonism
is right, then it was wrong according to Mormonism. However,
it is impossible to conceive of God not punishing JS for
having done those things if they were wrong. So, it seems,
one is left with only one of two judgments: either JS was OK
and Mormonism is OK, or JS wasn’t and Mormonism isn’t.

If Mormonism is false, then the easiest explanation is that JS
was trying to have sex with as many women as possible, and
they consented either out of faith, lust, curiosity, etc. I
think to call JS a sexual predator is misleading. The women
all consented (as far as we know). Marrying girls as young as
14 was no big deal then, and it is still legal in quite a few
states. Marrying more than one woman is something that nearly
every culture in the world approves of.

Of course, if what he did was wrong and he abused the faith of
his followers, I am still unsympathetic to the women involved.
Mormonism tells you to get confirmation from the Spirit. If
they did, they weren’t harmed, on their own account. If they
didn’t, they were bad Mormons who deserved whatever they got
(how much harm can a little liason with a powerful man really
do to a woman or her husband?).

The odd thing about polyandry is that no one has spoken up to
say, “Finally, some sex equality in Mormon polygamy!” For
there are some that would approve of two-way polygamy, but not
one-way polygamy.

The fact that these women apparently ended up unhappy cannot
be blamed on JS. I dare say that most Mormons of the time
died unhappy. Genesis attests that Jacob/Israel died unhappy
(46:7-10), and Jacob attests that Jacob (half-brother of
Nephi) died unhappy (7:26). It can hardly be said that Jesus
died happy, or any of the early Christians, for that matter.
Why should things be different for the first Mormons?

The secrecy thing likewise doesn’t seem to really be against
JS. We all lie to all kinds of people, and we believe it to
be justifiable when it’s for the good of the person we are
lying to. God has told his people to lie before, so I don’t
see what the big deal is. Now, if JS was just an adulterer,
then we can understand Emma getting mad. But she knew what
was going on, and could have divorced JS. If she didn’t, she
though it worthwhile to stick around.

So, I view the question as significant, but I don’t at present
see why it should create serious doubts about Mormonism.
There are, of course, all kinds of bizarre things in early
Church history that make JS and others look petty and
ignorant. But, I really think that if the Holy Ghost gives you a testimony, then all the other kooky stuff can just come rolling on in, and I’ll get just a good belly laugh. I really can’t muster the energy to care about a whole lot right now, so I’m willing to put up with a lot of crap. If what God does or commands seems wrong to us, I don’t see that as a problem. What’s a little horseplay in Nauvoo either way?

Regarding your comment to Geoff B: It is a matter of perspective. If one believes that Mormonism is a recycling of the system of revelations and commandments, or really, a continuation of covenants made with the children of men, beginning with Adam, interspersed with cycles of apostasy and restoration, then Joseph Smith is not the founder of our religion, but the restorer of truths which had been revealed previously. As such he plays a role, in our view, similar to Adam, Noah, Enoch, Abraham and Moses as prophets of their dispensations. Joseph didn’t “found” our religion any more than Abraham “founded” Judaism. All revealed the plan of salvation and the necessity of covenants with God to their generations. The word “founded” implies that an institution was created by the founder, something we tend not to believe about Joseph, but only about Jesus Christ, and even then, we believe Him to be the intermediary between us and the Father. If one believes that “Mormonism” is indeed a new religion, with few or tenuous roots to historical Christianity and/or Judaism, then of course, Geoff B’s statements would be read as disingenuous.

Basically, my feeling is that I wasn’t there. I don’t KNOW what was going on at the time. I’ve had enough other prayers answered and blessings in my life for doing what I’ve learned are true and correct principles that came through Joseph. I’m going to let God worry about Joseph Smith and I’ll worry about me.

The way your phrase this, David, makes it sound as though the Mishna, and the contemporary variety of Judaic movements, are understood to be representative expressions of that tendency that is currently called Reform Judaism, which obviously isn’t the case. Am I misunderstanding you? Perhaps when you say “our relationship to scripture” you are speaking of Jews in general. But then, certain conservative Orthodox sects would dispute that relationship, wouldn’t they? My understanding is that, while no conservative (using the term broadly) Jews read the Tanach literally (as many conservative evangelical Christians–and more than a few Mormons–do), quite a few do in fact consider the interpretation provided by the Talmud to be infallible.

“Are there Mormon jokes that you all tell on yourselves?”

Tragically, David, not nearly enough. I think we got over our oppression way too quickly to develop a really fine, sharp sense of humor. Maybe someday. In the short term, our best hope is probably just to convert a bunch of Jews, or maybe some Irish, and hope their jokes pollinate and spread.