Is the Church grooming its children to be ready for a reintroduction of plural marriage?

[Physics Guy]

They're trying everything they can to get past Joseph Smith's record as a sexual predator on minors. Their problem is that this record is just too big a deal. It's not just a matter of Smith not being perfect by modern standards.

If Smith had any valuable revelations or insights, most of them can be had from other sources without his extra baggage. And if there are any worthy insights that are unique to Smith, mentioning any of them in connection with Smith is still foregoing the opportunity, when Smith's name is mentioned, of instead using Smith as an example of grooming.

And that's a losing choice. It's always going to be of more moral value to use Joseph Smith to talk about grooming than it is to cite any revelations he had. He's worth more as a poster criminal than he is as a prophet.

If you don't think that's true, then just try the experiment. Mention that Smith revealed the opportunity of eternal progression, or whatever unique doctrine you think is important, and then in the same breath mention how he lured teenage girls into his harem. See which thread your hearers pick up as important. See how much attention his revelation seems to be worth, in the light of his sex life.

That's the problem I see with Smith's sex crimes. It's not even a new, modern problem. It's the same problem that Smith himself faced when he shut down the Nauvoo Expositor. The only new thing is that hiding the scandal takes more now than wrecking one printing press.

[Markk]

That's the problem I see with Smith's sex crimes. It's not even a new, modern problem. It's the same problem that Smith himself faced when he shut down the Nauvoo Expositor. The only new thing is that hiding the scandal takes more now than wrecking one printing press.

Read chapters 53 and 56. I had a field day in my mind filling in between the white washed lines as I read through the manual and these two chapters. You can't help to do so. It would make for a great podcast, even a series, for RFM and Reel using the the pictures and white washed narratives as slides, filling in the blanks of the manual.

It always boils down to they guys toeing the line between the truth and plausible deniability.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 2?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 4?lang=eng

[Moksha]

It would make for a great podcast, even a series, for RFM and Reel using the the pictures and white washed narratives as slides, filling in the blanks of the manual.

LDS Cartoons Inoculate Children

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRWIX1Rm5KM&t=2s

Rebecca Biblioteca did an excellent job with this.

[Molok]

When a predatory Bishop or Youth Leader wants to groom a victim the groundwork is now being done, proactively by the Church. They are officially teaching kids that when an older man wants to do sexual things with them, even if they feel it’s wrong, they will be blessed if they comply. That is literally the message of these lessons.

It’s like a predatory pedaphile is in charge of producing Church teaching materials and is designing ways to make victims even easier to groom.

This is just par for the course. No group of people is responsible for more assaults on children than Christians. Their outrage about hollywood and wokes and transgenders grooming children is performative, or projection.

[sock puppet]

When a predatory Bishop or Youth Leader wants to groom a victim the groundwork is now being done, proactively by the Church. They are officially teaching kids that when an older man wants to do sexual things with them, even if they feel it’s wrong, they will be blessed if they comply. That is literally the message of these lessons.

It’s like a predatory pedaphile is in charge of producing Church teaching materials and is designing ways to make victims even easier to groom.

This is just par for the course. No group of people is responsible for more assaults on children than Christians. Their outrage about hollywood and wokes and transgenders grooming children is performative, or projection.

Is there data to support the underlined proposition? All assaults on children are insidious crimes. To use what is touted as a safe place for children as the trap makes the insidiousness seven-fold worse.

[Molok]

This is just par for the course. No group of people is responsible for more assaults on children than Christians. Their outrage about hollywood and wokes and transgenders grooming children is performative, or projection.

Is there data to support the underlined proposition? All assaults on children are insidious crimes. To use what is touted as a safe place for children as the trap makes the insidiousness seven-fold worse.

defining Christian as all sects, not just Mormonism? I struggle to see how anything could compete. The catholic church alone is responsible for tens of thousands of instances, but it's hardly contained to them. You can just google "(denomination) sex scandal" and you will be presented with page after page of reports of abuse, and worst of all, it's also common for fellow church members to cover it up. Although, to be fair, the most common form abuse comes from family members or friends, that's why I specified organization.

[I Have Questions]

Carol Lynn Pearson for RNS writes…

This one took me by surprise. There it was — on the official website of my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — a short lesson to be taught in 2025 in Primary, the organization that serves the children, a cartoon storybook about plural marriage in our church’s history.

The children are assured that, even though Joseph Smith was reluctant to take more wives, God himself ordered our founding prophet, already a husband to Emma, to “marry” up to 40 women and girls. Some were even in their teens, and some were already married to other men. Historical research has demonstrated that some of Joseph’s “marriages” were sexual in nature. Stories suggest that many of these women did not want to become his wives but did so because they believed in Joseph’s divine authority.

What does this Primary lesson communicate to our kids?

Children will be indoctrinated with the understanding that if a “man of authority” tells us God wants us to do something we believe is wrong, we are to do it anyway. Child molesters will be very pleased.

https://religionnews.com/2025/01/10/new ... -children/

Did the notion that this initiative increases the dangers kids at church face from child milestones who have gained positions of authority not cross the minds of Church Leaders? If it did, how have they rationalised the risk/reward criteria? If they didn’t, shouldn’t the person responsible be fired?

[I Have Questions]

The Church, led by a Seer (someone that can see the future) has already done a U Turn on this stupid idea.

Only a few months after The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints published an illustrated explanation for children about the faith’s historic practice of polygamy, it has changed the images — and the messaging.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/LDS-c ... r-AA1zw5cE

In its first rendition, the chapter on plural marriage begins with church founder Joseph Smith and other Latter-day Saint leaders’ initial reluctance to take additional wives, followed by their ultimate “obedience” to what Smith said was a “commandment from the Lord.”

It goes on to explain the struggles Emma Smith, his first wife, had with polygamy and that outsiders “made laws against it,” imprisoning Latter-day Saint leaders for following their prophet’s instructions.

It also depicted Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, who went on to become the most famous polygamist of the American West, praying and deciding to obey this commandment of plural marriage.

The main message: God blesses those who heed him, even when it’s hard.

The revised site is much shorter and states that “usually a man should have only one wife. But sometimes the Lord commanded” otherwise.

The section eliminates mentions of Emma Smith or Brigham Young.

As before, the final cartoon notes the beginning of the end of polygamy in 1890, when “the Lord told Wilford Woodruff, the president of the church, that men should not marry more than one wife anymore.”

It concludes: “This is still the Lord’s commandment today — a man should be married to only one wife.”

Even the subhead on the new page is different: “Plural Marriage: A commandment for a time.”

Everybody could see how bad an idea this was. Everyone except the Church that claims to be the only one with a guy with access to God’s foresight.

I would also note that the hasty revisions don’t make this much better. It’s still grooming children, just a tiny bit less than it originally was.

Valerie Hudson, a Latter-day Saint scholar who directs the Program on Women, Peace and Security at Texas A&M University, applauded the move.

“That revised subtitle is a great step forward,” Hudson, who has argued this exact point about polygamy, wrote in an email. “This change indicates that polygamy is a time-bound Abrahamic sacrifice, which precludes any idea that polygamy is the normative marital state in the eternities.”

Valerie seems unaware that two members of the current First Presidency will be living polygamously as a normative marital state in the eternities.

[Moksha]

The latest iteration of the Children's Pictorial Manual of the Church helps clear up some verbiage with a whitewash of the whitewash.


"Joseph, the Lord sayeth, you must go hog wild with teenagers and other men's wives or that homicidal angel will skewer you. Verily!"

[toon]

Polygamy is something I like to bring up when at the bar. The conversation usually goes something about sports, then me being a BYU grad while ordering a gin and tonic. And then, my great-great grandfather had eight wives. It's usually a hit.

Trying to justify the church's past polygamy is something that is not going to go over today anymore than a lame joke.