89 replies to this topic

[Lachoneus]

Free Agent, on Mar 23 2007, 07:44 PM, said:

But why is he saying polygamy started when "our people went west".

  
He isn't saying that.

Quote

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Notice that President Hinckley is responding to the question "When it allowed it?" He clearly uses the word "permitted" in responding to King's question about when was it "allowed."  Polygamy was not allowed/permitted among the general membership of the church until after it was announced in 1852.

Quote

Polygamy was never practiced publicly by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) prior to 1852, when Brigham Young, the second Prophet and President of the Mormon Church, directed Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt to publicly state the practice and the reasons for it.

See here.

Like I said in my prior post, you can't share what you do not have. It is important to remember that just because we learn one thing new about a topic does not mean we have a complete understanding of the topic.

edited for spelling

Edited by Lachoneus, 24 March 2007 - 04:47 AM.

[It occurs to me . . .]

kilgore_trout, on Mar 23 2007, 08:19 PM, said:

When on a show like Larry King, it is better to answer in short, easy to digest sound bites.

Yes, and it's even better if those short sound bites happen to be true.  That's always a plus.

Connolly, on Mar 23 2007, 08:54 PM, said:

When did the church begin to move west?

Correctly answer this question and you will answer the first question.

That's quite an interesting tactic to use in order to justify his comments.  By this definition, are you implying that they began to practice polygamy the minute they left New York?

kilgore_trout, on Mar 23 2007, 09:26 PM, said:

The other problem is that history is a constantly moving target. It is forever being re-written and re-interpreted.   The church doesn't present it's teachings that way. Which version of the history should they present? Brodie? Bushman? B.H. Roberts?
If you look at the current curriculum, the history of the prophets is only used as far as some story or event highlights a gospel principle. The core of these manuals is not to teach historical events.

Whichever of these three historians they use, they would still agree on the fact that polygamy was practiced in Nauvoo.  Why doesn't President Hinckley's interview meet these basic accepted facts of church history?

[It occurs to me . . .]

Lachoneus, on Mar 24 2007, 04:44 AM, said:

He isn't saying that.

Notice that President Hinckley is responding to the question "When it allowed it?" He clearly uses the word "permitted" in responding to King's question about when was it "allowed."  Polygamy was not allowed/permitted among the general membership of the church until after it was announced in 1852.  See here.

Like I said in my prior post, you can't share what you do not have. It is important to remember that just because we learn one thing new about a topic does not mean we have a complete understanding of the topic.

edited for spelling

Come on! The exact same quote could be used to explain polygamy in Nauvoo.  "they permitted it on a restricted scale. "  No amount of twisting on your part is going to change these facts.  Polygamy was permitted on a restricted scale in Nauvoo, and it was permitted on a restricted scale in Utah,   The scale was obvioulsy a lot wider in Utah, but it was never "open to the general membership" as far as anyone who wanted to could do it.  There always had to be permission given by higher authority.

I'm amazed at how far members are willing to twist and turn in order to justify these statements.  Wouldn't it be easier just to say that, yes he mispoke at that time?

[kilgore_trout]

It occurs to me . . ., on Mar 24 2007, 08:16 AM, said:

Come on! The exact same quote could be used to explain polygamy in Nauvoo.  "they permitted it on a restricted scale. "  No amount of twisting on your part is going to change these facts.  Polygamy was permitted on a restricted scale in Nauvoo, and it was permitted on a restricted scale in Utah,   The scale was obvioulsy a lot wider in Utah, but it was never "open to the general membership" as far as anyone who wanted to could do it.  There always had to be permission given by higher authority.

I'm amazed at how far members are willing to twist and turn in order to justify these statements.  Wouldn't it be easier just to say that, yes he mispoke at that time?

Now you're speaking of the things President Hinckley "could" have said. The sound bite about practicing polygamy after moving out west is true and I believe ample evidence for that statement has been provided in the previous posts. We're starting to go in a circle here.

The church's current stance on polygamy is in no way a lie. Here it is:

Quote

President Gordon B. Hinckley stated the following about polygamy in the Church's October 1998 general conference:

â??I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.

"If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of thelaw of this Church. An article of our faith is binding upon us. It states, 'We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law' (Articles of Faith 1:12).�

According to your thinking, every statement about polygamy should be prefaced with a time line and history lesson. Why should we continually make statements about doctrines we no longer practice?

See more church statements here:

LDS News Room

[charity]

This whole discussion is so sad.  So how many people are going to end up at the judgement with some kind of story like this:  "I would have been a valiant Saint.  I would have followed all the commandments.  I would have read the thousands of words of counsel and instruction You gave me in the scriptures, and in General Conference talks, and in talks and instructions by local leaders.  And I would have prayed and let You give me personal words and ideas to follow. But you see, President Hinckley said these 12 words on a TV show, and I just figured I couldn't follow Your commandments anymore after that. "

Esau lost his inheritance because of a bowl of breakfast mush. Thomas B. Marsh lost his inheritance because of a cup of cream.  And how many are going to lose their inheritances because of 12 words on a TV show?

[Deborah]

Neighbor, on Mar 23 2007, 09:16 PM, said:

Nice try Deborah:-)  I've been to services too many times with my wife to think Jesus is more a focus of topic at your church than Joseph and Brigham are:-)

And I'll wager I've been to a lot more than you. The emphasis is always on Jesus Christ. Even lessons from the prophets focus on the principles Christ taught. I think people hear what they want to hear and filter out the rest.

[It occurs to me . . .]

kilgore_trout, on Mar 24 2007, 06:10 AM, said:

The sound bite about practicing polygamy after moving out west is true

No, It's not.   No matter how bad you wish it were true, simply saying it is, doesn't make it so.
Polygamy started and was permitted in Nauvoo!

Quote

The church's current stance on polygamy is in no way a lie. Here it is:

Since this thread is not about the church's current stance, I don't see how this pertains to the discussion.

[It occurs to me . . .]

charity, on Mar 24 2007, 06:55 AM, said:

This whole discussion is so sad.  . . . .

how many are going to lose their inheritances because of 12 words on a TV show?

I would suspect none.  I don't think anyone here is implying that they are losing their inheritance or their testimonies over this.

[Deborah]

I have had those moments as well where something I thought was a certain way wasn't. I did not blame "The Church" for not teaching correctly, but rather decided people who were telling me certain things were misinformed and I needed to find out what was true. It led me to my own study and prayer.

I really don't understand this whiny attitude some have, especially when it comes to polygamy, which had to be handled carefully when it was practiced because of the persecution. Why on earth would we treat it even less carefully today when it is still such a hot topic, especially when it isn't even a part of our current practice. To explain the practice of plurality of wives fully you must have an understanding of eternal marriage and exaltation. To give a mere history of the practice does not do it justice and does not explain why in certain instances it was allowed. Sunday church services or missionary discussions are NOT the appropriate time or place to get into a history of something that is no longer practiced. Those forums are to teach principles of the gospel as taught by Christ and help people gain a testimony. There are other forums, including classes at BYU and Institute, where the history can be discussed in greater detail.

D&C 132 is there for all to read. If "The Church" wanted to hide polygamy they would edit that section. Furthermore much of the history, in particular as it pertains to Joseph Smith, is vague and inaccurate. So Joseph practiced polygamy. I frankly thought this was common knowledge when I became a member. I am truly surprised at the amount of ingnorance some members of the church have but then I don't blame it on the church and neither should they.

[Neighbor]

Deborah, on Mar 24 2007, 09:00 AM, said:

I have had those moments as well where something I thought was a certain way wasn't. I did not blame "The Church" for not teaching correctly, but rather decided people who were telling me certain things were misinformed and I needed to find out what was true. It led me to my own study and prayer.

I really don't understand this whiny attitude some have, especially when it comes to polygamy, which had to be handled carefully when it was practiced because of the persecution. Why on earth would we treat it even less carefully today when it is still such a hot topic, especially when it isn't even a part of our current practice. To explain the practice of plurality of wives fully you must have an understanding of eternal marriage and exaltation. To give a mere history of the practice does not do it justice and does not explain why in certain instances it was allowed. Sunday church services or missionary discussions are NOT the appropriate time or place to get into a history of something that is no longer practiced. Those forums are to teach principles of the gospel as taught by Christ and help people gain a testimony. There are other forums, including classes at BYU and Institute, where the history can be discussed in greater detail.

D&C 132 is there for all to read. If "The Church" wanted to hide polygamy they would edit that section. Furthermore much of the history, in particular as it pertains to Joseph Smith, is vague and inaccurate. So Joseph practiced polygamy. I frankly thought this was common knowledge when I became a member. I am truly surprised at the amount of ingnorance some members of the church have but then I don't blame it on the church and neither should they.

So how many have read the accounts of the families ruined by polygamy?  How many have looked into the accounts of "The lost boys"?  How many have looked into the abuse of women in polygamy? Rotten, rotten, rotten, and if it were to be accepted as doctrine today it would lead to more rottenness than before because people are more wicked today.

[charity]

It occurs to me . . ., on Mar 24 2007, 08:41 AM, said:

I would suspect none.  I don't think anyone here is implying that they are losing their inheritance or their testimonies over this.

I really hope you are right.  But questioning and criticizing the prophet is the first step on a bad road.

It occurs to me . . ., on Mar 24 2007, 08:39 AM, said:

No, It's not.   No matter how bad you wish it were true, simply saying it is, doesn't make it so.
Polygamy started and was permitted in Nauvoo!
Since this thread is not about the church's current stance, I don't see how this pertains to the discussion.

Actually, earlier than that.  But that's okay.  It doesn't matter. The Lord commands. His people obey.

[Deborah]

Neighbor, on Mar 24 2007, 09:19 AM, said:

So how many have read the accounts of the families ruined by polygamy?  How many have looked into the accounts of "The lost boys"?  How many have looked into the abuse of women in polygamy? Rotten, rotten, rotten, and if it were to be accepted as doctrine today it would lead to more rottenness than before because people are more wicked today.

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the early practice of the latter-day church or of the Ancient Patriarchs. These are modern practices you are referring to by apostate groups. I suspect that one reason, besides the fact we wanted to become part of the US and therefore had to abide by the law of the land, the Lord stopped the practice was because he foresaw the wickedness of the latter days and what could happen if evil men started abusing it. I do not see polygamy returning in the current society, nor does anyone else. But I do see it being practiced righteously during the Millennial reign of Christ.

[Connolly]

Free Agent, on Mar 23 2007, 10:08 PM, said:

Connolly -

Answer me this question - when we talk about the church moving west, what do you believe the majority of members of the church take that to mean  

a)  East coast westward

http://www.mormonapo...tyle_emoticons/default/cool.gif Missouri/Nauvoo to the Great Salt Lake
I think 9 out of 10 would choose b, IMO

Free Agent

I disagree. You ask the majority of members to "correctly answer" the question, and they will come up with the right answer, they may not get the year exact, but the answer will identify that moving west began with the Kirtland era.

[Lachoneus]

It occurs to me . . ., on Mar 24 2007, 06:16 AM, said:

I'm amazed at how far members are willing to twist and turn in order to justify these statements.  Wouldn't it be easier just to say that, yes he mispoke at that time?

Easier, but not true. My original comment still stands. He correctly answered the question asked. I'm amazed at how far some people are willing to twist and turn to find a misstatement.

[Free Agent]

Charity,

I agree with you that this discussion is sad, not for your reasons, but because some of us who genuinely have concerns are called "whiny" and "ignorant" by a certain poster, just because we didn't know about this.  I have shared my concerns with my bishop and with a few other individuals close to me and they all have been very supportive and have concurred that not knowing about polygamy and the Joseph Smith angle is pretty common and not something we really discuss openly.  

As far as your feelings that 12 words could make or break a testimony, that is so far from the truth.  For me, this is just one more "nail in the coffin", one more inconsistency of many that I have discovered in my studies.  I wish it weren't so, but it is.  


Free Agent

[Lachoneus]

Free Agent, on Mar 24 2007, 12:12 PM, said:

For me, this is just one more "nail in the coffin", one more inconsistency of many that I have discovered in my studies.  I wish it weren't so, but it is.  

My experience has been that nearly all "inconsistencies" are in the mind of the beholder. Hence, my comments about the "whole truth" above.

[Noggin]

No Touch, on Mar 23 2007, 07:04 PM, said:

Pretty much everything is west of where the Church began (upstate NY), and so they had already begun a more general westward migration when they were in Nauvoo, even if it isn't thought as West in modern times. If your going to criticize him for something, I would do it more for being so vague about it, but not outright lying. He didn't say it began in the 1850s or after the beginning of settlement in Utah. He made a a very vague statement. And with that said, I for one don't blame him. This country has a very upside-down view of individual rights, particularly in regards to religion, which is manifested in the still-standing stygmatization of Mormons as polygamists in spite of the fact that it has been almost 120 years since the First Presidency called to end the practice.

Still, I don't worry about this because there is nothing wrong with polygamy.

you are entitled to your opinion that "nothing is wrong with polygamy", sure, however, polygamy was dreadful to more than a few who lived it.  Might I suggest that you read an LDS journal or two of lonely neglected women unable to properly care for her children who hardly saw the father on a regular basis.

And even Brigham Young was vexed in public, even in tabernacle speeches, on the problems found in polygamous marriages.  He offered stern chastisements more than a couple of times and even threatened a time or two.  Polygamy was a severe trial for many and for you to offer that there is nothing wrong with it suggests you haven't read much about those who lived it in the 19th century.  

The LDS church issued a manifesto in 1890 that brough the polygamy sealing power for living Latter Day Saints to a halt.  Mormons still embrace polygamy.  A man can still have many wives sealed to him for eternity as soon as the first wife dies.  If he marries another woman who is not sealed to another man, that woman is sealed to him also.

It is then accepted by the church and general membership who know about this multiplicity of wives scenario that this man, and by default the new bride, are now polygamists.

Noggin

[counterfitdollar]

Deborah, on Mar 24 2007, 11:06 AM, said:

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the early practice of the latter-day church or of the Ancient Patriarchs. These are modern practices you are referring to by apostate groups. I suspect that one reason, besides the fact we wanted to become part of the US and therefore had to abide by the law of the land, the Lord stopped the practice was because he foresaw the wickedness of the latter days and what could happen if evil men started abusing it. I do not see polygamy returning in the current society, nor does anyone else. But I do see it being practiced righteously during the Millennial reign of Christ.

[counterfitdollar]

I find it interesting to note that men all over this country are having affairs right and left. They leave their families for a "newer" or "younger" woman and resent paying child support (or don't pay at all). They expect society to pay for their children or don't care that their ex-wives live in poverty while trying to raise their children. Wouldn't it just be better if men could take another wife (if they could afford it it and the first wife would allow it), than to just leave the family? It seems to me that adultery is so common, with such dire results for children, that polygamy would be the better solution (with the caveat that the man, and not society) would have to foot the cost . Why all the angst about polygamy?

[hagoth7]

Quote

When do you believe latter-day polygamy began?

Thoughts?????

I'd say, March 4, 1540, when Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, married a second concurrent wife, Margarethe von der Saale, in the presence of Bucer and Melancthon.  

Although protestant leaders had privately encouraged King Henry VIII to consider similar action, when news of the Hesse situation became public, many publicly backpedaled.

Luther said in this context that it was not enough for a Christian to consider the acts of the patriarchs, but that he, like the patriarchs, must have special divine sanction.