Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

cinepro

Dante'S Polygamy

Recommended Posts

The issue of Joseph Smith's polygamy is covered in well-referenced detail in Todd Compton's book In Sacred Loneliness. Each chapter is an biography on one of Joseph Smith's wives. He substantiates each of these claims by quoting primarily friendly contemporary sources (most importantly the women themselves, of whom the vast majority were faithful church members until death). I believe cinepro is referring to Marinda Johnson Hyde and Sarah Pratt in the sixth point, Emily and Eliza Partridge in the seventh point.

@TAO Helen Mar Kimball's own account of events leading up to her marriage to Joseph Smith makes it clear that conditional promises were made regarding her's and her family's salvation. Also see Sarah Ann Whitney and the Partridge sisters.

To be honest, cinepro's nine points are quite conservative. I would include as a tenth point that Joseph engaged in sexual relations with many if not all of his plural wives (including those who were married to other men). This is perhaps best documented by Joseph F. Smith's interviews with many of Joseph Smith's plural wives done ironically to counter RLDS claims that Joseph Smith didn't practice plural marriage.

I think most church members don't have knowledge of any more than the first point.

I have no problems if the claims were true. The big point IF!

Sorry, I can't take anyone seriously when they only can offer up Todd Compton's book as the "evidence".

Does anyone have actual legitimate evidence other than a random tertiary quotes and book by an author who doesn't define himself simply as a believing Mormon?

Meaning, he can't even simply say he is a faithful LDS member, he has to describe how he considers himself "different". It is the same common theme that happens on these boards and the interwebs. To define your beliefs as a "cultural Mormon" or a "non-correlated Mormon". Which is only a translation of a member on record who doesn't fully accept everything in the Gospel. They pick and choose what they want to believe "a la carte" style including beliefs on Joseph Smith that are based entirely on speculation and generalizations. This is not a true believing Mormon no matter how much you try to spin it.

Bachman's review. My link

Shield's review. My link

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, almost exactly like that, cinepro.

As I descended further and further down, it got worse for me. Then one day it dawned on me: This was all made up by Joseph Smith. You can imagine the relief and comfort that gave me. The world is a much happier place for me now. It's like living in a fog of depression and then suddenly being freed to walk on a beach in the warm sun.

rolleyes.gif so dramatic.

Unfortunately, you have it completely backwards. It was all made up about Joseph Smith.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm...it never even occurred to me that anyone would find this objectionable. In fact, from a doctrinal standpoint, I would be more disturbed if he hadn't tried to have children with his plural wives. (Off the top of my head, I can't recall the Lord ever giving another reason for polygamy than to "raise up seed".) Indeed, Joseph could have accomplished any other spiritual benefit by sealing the women as daughters (and without any of the controversy). The only reason you would need a marriage sealing would be to create posterity.

But unless he married some serious cougars, not "all".

As for the claims inherent in the Nine Rings of Polygamy Hell, after years on this forum I considered them to be in the realm "common knowledge" and I was too lazy to provide references for them. But we shouldn't underestimate the ability to use denial as a coping mechanism as well (but since denial is just one way to reach a state of "unfazed", it is included in the general principles in the OP).

Seriously?

You are going to use the weakest argument of all that G-d has commanded us to "multiply and replenish the Earth" so that means Joseph Smith wives were only used for posterity?

I don't blame you being "lazy" in providing the references because we all know they are from tertiary sources and from non-trustworthy books that are based on speculations and generalizations. The same type of speculations by using G-d's command to "raise seed" argument.

Share this post


Link to post

I have no particular problem with polygamy, but I am glad I haven't been asked to practice it.

Share this post


Link to post

I have no problems if the claims were true. The big point IF!

Sorry, I can't take anyone seriously when they only can offer up Todd Compton's book as the "evidence".

Does anyone have actual legitimate evidence other than a random tertiary quotes and book by an author who doesn't define himself simply as a believing Mormon?

Meaning, he can't even simply say he is a faithful LDS member, he has to describe how he considers himself "different". It is the same common theme that happens on these boards and the interwebs. To define your beliefs as a "cultural Mormon" or a "non-correlated Mormon". Which is only a translation of a member on record who doesn't fully accept everything in the Gospel. They pick and choose what they want to believe "a la carte" style including beliefs on Joseph Smith that are based entirely on speculation and generalizations. This is not a true believing Mormon no matter how much you try to spin it.

Bachman's review. My link

Shield's review. My link

Feel free to address any of Compton's very well-documented claims. The book is probably available at your local library if you don't want to purchase it.

Share this post


Link to post

Feel free to address any of Compton's very well-documented claims. The book is probably available at your local library if you don't want to purchase it.

I will let the experts do their work hence the posted links. You don't even need to go to the library to read them, they are just a click away. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

A possible eleventh ring: It was taught explicitly and generally understood by the membership that plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation.

Share this post


Link to post

I will let the experts do their work hence the posted links. You don't even need to go to the library to read them, they are just a click away. wink.gif

Neither review refutes any of cinepro's original nine points. Each of these was substantiated by direct quotes from the women themselves or other contemporary friendly Mormon sources. These quotes are available in Compton's book.

Share this post


Link to post
A possible eleventh ring: It was taught explicitly and generally understood by the membership that plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation.

As it was when those preaching that position spoke.

The issue was "follow the living prophet". Those, like Sarah Pratt, who could not accept the word of the Lord through brigham Young or Wilford Woodruff were not keeping their covenants.

Today, the living prophet says do not practice Plural Marriage (or anything like it), and we are just as guilty of failure if we try to follow dead prophets in conflict with the live one.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

Neither review refutes any of cinepro's original nine points. Each of these was substantiated by direct quotes from the women themselves or other contemporary friendly Mormon sources. These quotes are available in Compton's book.

Please read what I stated. I took issue with some of his points, not all of them.

The points that I took issue with come from tertiary quotes or Compton's book full of speculations and generalizations and both are not legitimate evidence (only to those who are desperately trying to find anything to make Joseph Smith not look as a Prophet of G-d, but as a "sexually immoral" man).

The reviews were on Compton's book which cinepro derived some of his points from. Not sure how that is hard to follow.

Share this post


Link to post

The points that I took issue with come from tertiary quotes or Compton's book full of speculations and generalizations and both are not legitimate evidence

Please expound.

Share this post


Link to post

As it was when those praching that position spoke.

The issue was "follow the living prophet". Those, like Sarah Pratt, who could not accept the word of the Lord through brigham Young or Wilford Woodruff were not keeping their covenants.

Today, the living prophet says do not practice Plural Marriage (or anything like it), and we are just as guilty of failure if we try to follow dead prophets in conflict with the live one.

Lehi

Fair enough. Is it possible that some of the requirements for exaltation as taught today will change in the future?

Share this post


Link to post

citizen28:

They may, but I don't foresee any big changes. It is still based on obedience.

Share this post


Link to post
Is it possible that some of the requirements for exaltation as taught today will change in the future?

The Word of Wisdom comes to mind, although in retrospect, not looking forward. It was not a requirement for Peter, but is for me. Why? Because I have made a covenant to follow it, and Peter did not.

The principle is the same in any case: we follow living prophets. We do not second guess the Lord. If the requirement to live the law of the Fast were to be lifted at Conference in October, and replaced with the United Order, we'd see a lot of belly-aching, I'm sure. Those who refused to follow new counsel would be breaking their covenants.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

Please expound.

Post # 2. I then explained why I took issue. Tertiary quotes and an untrustworthy book are not evidence. The reviews described the book in using speculations and generalizations.

In case we need to explain speculation and how it is not evidence, here are examples of pure speculation just based on cinepro's part.

Cinepro stated:

Sixth: "Joseph Smith taught the principle of plural marriage to some women while their husbands were away on missions, suggesting they enter into the practice before their husbands got back"

Key word: "suggesting". This is pure speculation.

Cinepro stated:

Ninth: Some of the women who entered into polygamous marriages with Joseph were younger than we might have expected, and part of the motivation for them accepting the offer may have been promises made to them about the eternal state of their family based on if they accepted or denied the offer.

Key words: "may have been". This is also pure speculation.

Speculation, no matter how hard you make it out to be, is not evidence.

Feel free to post real evidence to the points I took issue with.

Share this post


Link to post

You are going to use the weakest argument of all that G-d has commanded us to "multiply and replenish the Earth" so that means Joseph Smith wives were only used for posterity?

I believe Cinepro had Jacob 2:27-30 in mind with his statement (not Genesis).

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, almost exactly like that, cinepro.

As I descended further and further down, it got worse for me. Then one day it dawned on me: This was all made up by Joseph Smith. You can imagine the relief and comfort that gave me. The world is a much happier place for me now. It's like living in a fog of depression and then suddenly being freed to walk on a beach in the warm sun.

I second this motion. The day that I found out God was made by men and not the other way around was a liberating day in my life. I began to see the world through different lenses. I no longer had to live my life in fear of some invisible dictator in the sky who, although he claimed to love me, watched for lapses in my "voluntary" obedience to arbitrary and -- at times -- nonsensical laws that he had decided without my input. The fear of torment in the afterlife vanished, and I was left to enjoy the world, the beauty of life, and the complexity of the universe without that monkey on my back.

Share this post


Link to post

I have no particular problem with polygamy, but I am glad I haven't been asked to practice it.

Amen

Share this post


Link to post

That is beautiful. I believe that we can not understand right now eternity very well. But I DO believe that plural marriage is of God and it is eternal principle which we will understand very well when we get there. Because we will be able to love everybody the way God loves us.

If it is so beautiful, then why did JS have resort to deception and dishonesty. Taking women behind his legal wife's back. Taking the wives of his followers behind their backs? If it is so beautiful, then why does not the church today celebrate this wonderful doctrine instead of trying to hide and forget that it even happened?

Share this post


Link to post

If it is so beautiful, then why did JS have resort to deception and dishonesty. Taking women behind his legal wife's back. Taking the wives of his followers behind their backs? If it is so beautiful, then why does not the church today celebrate this wonderful doctrine instead of trying to hide and forget that it even happened?

Where again is the doctrine of deception and dishonesty found again?

Share this post


Link to post

I second this motion. The day that I found out God was made by men and not the other way around was a liberating day in my life. I began to see the world through different lenses. I no longer had to live my life in fear of some invisible dictator in the sky who, although he claimed to love me, watched for lapses in my "voluntary" obedience to arbitrary and -- at times -- nonsensical laws that he had decided without my input. The fear of torment in the afterlife vanished, and I was left to enjoy the world, the beauty of life, and the complexity of the universe without that monkey on my back.

Well, good for you. Enjoy it while it lasts!

Personally, I do not find that I have any great fear of torment in the afterlife, nor has my enjoyment of the world, life's beauty, nor especially the complexity and splendor of the universe been in any way curtainled, WITH "that monkey on my back". My discovery a good number of years ago that God created men -- and that He knows who I am! -- awakened in my heart a great feeling of gratitude. Firstly because all this enjoyment will not end with my mortal death! I imagined in my youth that I would possibly be able to travel to the Moon and the planets, since I believed that the US was going to maintain its space program instead of throwing it away, but my disappointment in that is now tempered with the comfortable realization that I will be able to see far more after this life than I could during it.

Share this post


Link to post

Fair enough. Is it possible that some of the requirements for exaltation as taught today will change in the future?

sure, why not? In OT times people had different requirements for salvation(exaltation) than in NT times or in 21st century. The same with 22nd century.

As sometimesaint said: obidience is the key for exaltation. Today God will say:do this. And He will see if we do this. Tomorrow God will say:do that., And He will see if we do that.

He will TEST US IN EVERYTHING.

Share this post


Link to post

If it is so beautiful, then why did JS have resort to deception and dishonesty.

Taking women behind his legal wife's back. Taking the wives of his followers behind their backs? If it is so beautiful, then why does not the church today celebrate this wonderful doctrine instead of trying to hide and forget that it even happened?

I will tell you why. Marriage in this life is not all the time very beautiful thing. Many times it is ugly. But marriage in eternity is BEAUTIFUL thing. Plural marriage in eternity is BEAUTIFUL thing.

Sometines I feel like I want to kill my husband and there is no way I want to spend whole eternity with him. But I know that if I try harder to be more like Christ then my husband and I will have our reward. We will have PERFECT and BEAUTIFUL heavenly marriage. Even IF he will have many wives.;)

Life itself is NOT always beautiful. THIS life. But eternal life is ALWAYS beautiful.

P.S. Many people were not ready to hear this doctrine. This is the only reason why JS didn't tell everybody right away. That is what I believe. You may believe what ever you want, my friend.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...