Jump to content

Archived

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

cinepro

Dante'S Polygamy

Recommended Posts

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

The sixth point is a reference to Joseph's marriage to Marinda Johnson Hyde which probably took place in April of 1842 while Orson Hyde was on a mission, but is only very well-documented by somewhat antagonistic sources which I assume you will not accept under any circumstances. Whatever the case, friendly sources list this marriage as occurring instead in April of 1843 soon after Hyde returned from his mission around which time he was ostensibly taught the 'principle' and began taking plural wives himself.

In regards to the ninth point:

"I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me the principle and asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph who came next morning and with my parents I heard him teach and explain the principle of Celestial marriage - after which he said to me , 'If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that . . . of your fathers household and all of your kindred.' I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." - Helen Mar Whitney Journal, Helen Mar Autobiography, Woman's Exponent, 1881

I hope you would take the time to actually look at Compton's book rather than relying on special pleading to apologist reviews that merely disagreed with his speculation on minor points, but left the major points (including those referred to by cinepro) untouched.

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?

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

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

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.

So the principle of plural marriage is either a principle of exaltation or a principle of damnation depending on what the current God commands. Which principles of exaltation does God follow?

Share this post


Link to post

In a recent discussion on polygamy, what started out as a rather focused discussion on one specific aspect of the practice soon became fuzzy with people introducing other unrelated parts.

This led to misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the history of polygamy and why, exactly, some people (LDS and non-LDS) have a problem with it.

So, to clarify the issue, I would suggest that the history of polygamy in the LDS Church isn't one thing that we can refer to as "polygamy", but instead it is a subject with many layers. And as you descend through the layers, the practice gets more and more objectionable for many people.

If I may, I would like to get peoples' impression on how these layers (or "rings") would be organized. As a nod to Dante's Inferno and the trauma some people feel as they learn more and more about polygamy in the early LDS church, I would refer to this as "The Nine Rings of Polygamy Hell".

Starting at the most general and placid and leading towards the most specific and objectionable:

First:
The most basic general knowledge - "Some early LDS practiced polygamy, including Brigham Young. The Church stopped the practice in 1890"

Second:
"Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, and was sealed to upwards of 30 women".

Third:
"Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and married women without Emma's knowledge."

Fourth:
"Joseph Smith's wives included women who were married to other living men."

Fifth:
"Joseph Smith publicly denied polygamy at the same time he was practicing it"

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"

Seventh:
"When Emma consented to polygamy under limited circumstances and suggested two potential wives whom Joseph had already married, Joseph performed a second sealing ceremony to make Emma think he hadn't already been sealed to them instead of telling her they were already his wives"

Eighth:
After the Church published the Manifesto in 1890, Wilford Woodruff and other Church leaders continued to authorize and perform a very small number of plural marriages.

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.

Based on what I've seen on this forum, that's my first draft for how people tend to react to information about polygamy in the Church. Meaning, people tend to be relatively unfazed by the first ring, and get more fazed as they descend towards ring nine.

I'm curious what other people have experienced, either in their own studies or from the reactions of people around them. Obviously, there are people who are unfazed by all of it; I'm not saying this applies to everyone. I'm thinking of this as more of a framework for general reactions.

I would put a tenth ring, probably somewhere towards the bottom, about the reasons given for plural marriage. I was taught that the reasons were mostly to take care of women who had lost their husbands in the Mormon wars, and also to produce progeny (which, seems, never to have happened, in the case of Joseph and his wives). Having been given those reasons, for plural marriage, made the discovery that he had been sealed to some already married women, and some very young girls, all the more shocking, to me. It didn't fit in with what I had been told.

Edit: Perhaps, that's not a whole new circle, just added information for six and nine. I would move six down to seven or eight.

Number eight was really not a big issue for me.

Share this post


Link to post

The answer is in Abraham 3:23-25

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

Share this post


Link to post

...

With regard to being the "only one", I think that in the celestial state, even in a plural marriage situation the husband would be able to give himself 100% to each of her who might be his wife, and none would notice any lack. That is, of course, in the nature of the Eternal. After all, our Father in Heaven knows each of us -- all of his children throughout His entire Universe -- perfectly, so clearly there is no limitation on an Eternal being when it comes to being in multiple places at one time. Assuming "time" is a real thing in such a setting.

You realize, I expect, that this exegesis you're offering up is completely speculation only? I've entertained something of the sort, when confronted by a female's natural repugnance for plural marriage. We guys have to come up with SOMETHING to offset Joseph Smith's wonderful vision of family life in heaven!

But actually the real answer is contained in D&C 132. Verses 41-44, and 51, are obviously meant to be read by Emma. A woman whose husband has engaged in polygamy without being authorized can be given to another man. And a woman who is "appointed under the holy anointing" can "be with another man"; the implication is clearly there. Whereas in verse 51, Emma is to "stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her". In the context of the revelation, this can only mean that Joseph offered Emma the opportunity to take another husband, i.e. to "be with another man... appointed under the holy anointing". Seen under the historical light of Joseph Smith's polyandry in 1843, the inference is clear enough: "goose and gander" in heaven are equally privileged to obtain husbands and wives.

(Btw, I find the whole subject repugnant in the extreme.)

And logically, if a man can give himself fully to an infinite number of women in eternity, the same ought to apply to women; a "what's good for the goose is okeedokee for the gander", sort of thing. This whole "patriarchal marriage" concept is traditional in the mainstream religions. But there are cultures that follow "matriarchal marriage"; even rare ones that engage in polyandry instead of polygany. And I don't know a woman who doesn't agree with the logic and fairness of such a concept, IF plural marriages are indeed what heaven is all about....

Share this post


Link to post

The sixth point is a reference to Joseph's marriage to Marinda Johnson Hyde which probably took place in April of 1842 while Orson Hyde was on a mission, but is only very well-documented by somewhat antagonistic sources which I assume you will not accept under any circumstances. Whatever the case, friendly sources list this marriage as occurring instead in April of 1843 soon after Hyde returned from his mission around which time he was ostensibly taught the 'principle' and began taking plural wives himself.

In regards to the ninth point:

"I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me the principle and asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph who came next morning and with my parents I heard him teach and explain the principle of Celestial marriage - after which he said to me , 'If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that . . . of your fathers household and all of your kindred.' I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." - Helen Mar Whitney Journal, Helen Mar Autobiography, Woman's Exponent, 1881

I hope you would take the time to actually look at Compton's book rather than relying on special pleading to apologist reviews that merely disagreed with his speculation on minor points, but left the major points (including those referred to by cinepro) untouched.

Are you even trying?

The sixth point you are using what source? Just your own interpretation of, what? And the "which probably" is not convincing, at all.

A journal with (........) in between the words? Seriously?

Does anyone know what legitimate evidence is? Anyone?

Share this post


Link to post

I would put a tenth ring, probably somewhere towards the bottom, about the reasons given for plural marriage. I was taught that the reasons were mostly to take care of women who had lost their husbands in the Mormon wars, and also to produce progeny (which, seems, never to have happened, in the case of Joseph and his wives). Having been given those reasons, for plural marriage, made the discovery that he had been sealed to some already married women, and some very young girls, all the more shocking, to me. It didn't fit in with what I had been told.

Edit: Perhaps, that's not a whole new circle, just added information for six and nine. I would move six down to seven or eight.

Number eight was really not a big issue for me.

Interesting. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Yes, thank you Doctor Steuss.

To be clear, BookofMormonTruth, in Jacob 2 the Lord says:

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to practice polygamy]; otherwise they shall hearken unto [my command not to practice polygamy].

If there were other reasons for polygamy than "raising up seed", than the Lord probably shouldn't have used an "If..otherwise..." statement.

Share this post


Link to post

In a recent discussion on polygamy, what started out as a rather focused discussion on one specific aspect of the practice soon became fuzzy with people introducing other unrelated parts.

This led to misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the history of polygamy and why, exactly, some people (LDS and non-LDS) have a problem with it.

So, to clarify the issue, I would suggest that the history of polygamy in the LDS Church isn't one thing that we can refer to as "polygamy", but instead it is a subject with many layers. And as you descend through the layers, the practice gets more and more objectionable for many people.

If I may, I would like to get peoples' impression on how these layers (or "rings") would be organized. As a nod to Dante's Inferno and the trauma some people feel as they learn more and more about polygamy in the early LDS church, I would refer to this as "The Nine Rings of Polygamy Hell".

Starting at the most general and placid and leading towards the most specific and objectionable:

First:
The most basic general knowledge - "Some early LDS practiced polygamy, including Brigham Young. The Church stopped the practice in 1890"

Second:
"Joseph Smith practiced polygamy, and was sealed to upwards of 30 women".

Third:
"Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and married women without Emma's knowledge."

Fourth:
"Joseph Smith's wives included women who were married to other living men."

Fifth:
"Joseph Smith publicly denied polygamy at the same time he was practicing it"

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"

Seventh:
"When Emma consented to polygamy under limited circumstances and suggested two potential wives whom Joseph had already married, Joseph performed a second sealing ceremony to make Emma think he hadn't already been sealed to them instead of telling her they were already his wives"

Eighth:
After the Church published the Manifesto in 1890, Wilford Woodruff and other Church leaders continued to authorize and perform a very small number of plural marriages.

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.

Based on what I've seen on this forum, that's my first draft for how people tend to react to information about polygamy in the Church. Meaning, people tend to be relatively unfazed by the first ring, and get more fazed as they descend towards ring nine.

I'm curious what other people have experienced, either in their own studies or from the reactions of people around them. Obviously, there are people who are unfazed by all of it; I'm not saying this applies to everyone. I'm thinking of this as more of a framework for general reactions.

Genetic research by Ugo Perego has failed to confirm a single descendant of Joseph Smith through any woman other than Emma Smith. Five likely candidates have been ruled out including Fanny Alger’s first son and his male descendants. In a couple cases, genetic research also confirmed the paternity of boys as that of their mother’s legal husband and refuted gossip that surrounded their paternity for 170 years.

http://www.josephsmithjr.org/the-news/60-smith-descendants-other-wives

Share this post


Link to post

Cinepro, somewhere on the list of rings I would add the language of D&C 132: 47-66. For years it made me uncomfortable reading those verses, all the references to "she shall be destroyed".

I read those verses thinking, this is the voice of God? Didn't feel right. Once I let myself read those verses while asking the question, "did Joseph write this himself?" those verses make much more sense.

It's interesting to me to read threads like this where there seems to be a desire among some posters to refute books such as In Sacred Loneliness or others. Much of the research in those books comes from journal keepers like Benjamin F. Johnson, a great friend to Joseph Smith, who remained faithful, or from journal entries of some of the wives, like Helen Mar Kimball, who also remained faithful all her life. How many people do we have to distrust as lying to not accept what they say about Joseph's involvement in polygamy?

Why is there a difficulty in believing or accepting the idea that Joseph Smith had literal marriages with many women when there is no debate as to whether the LDS people continued in secret and then very public polygamy for decades after Joseph Smith was killed? Is there any scholarship anywhere that points to the idea that polygamy started with Brigham Young? The church itself does not teach that. Why do so many people seem to want to argue against the idea that Joseph Smith slept with more than one woman? Why is it okay for all the men who were faithful to Joseph Smith and followed him, and not Joseph Smith himself? In the context of the last section of D&C 132, it shouldn't be surprising.

Share this post


Link to post

So the principle of plural marriage is either a principle of exaltation or a principle of damnation depending on what the current God commands. Which principles of exaltation does God follow?

I wouldn't say the "principle" but rather the practice. That is a huge difference and it is determined by the times and needs of the people. Technically there is still plural marriage today in the form of sealings to more than one wife when one is deceased. Practice in the church from OT times to the present has always been subject to change. Doctrine remains the same.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, thank you Doctor Steuss.

To be clear, BookofMormonTruth, in Jacob 2 the Lord says:

If there were other reasons for polygamy than "raising up seed", than the Lord probably shouldn't have used an "If..otherwise..." statement.

There is no official doctrine on why polygamy was commanded so there is no need to speak for the Lord in what He should or "shouldn't" have done.

Random quotes, random quotes with (......) in between, untrustworthy books, speculations and the likes are not legitimate evidence.

Why are you conveniently silent on real evidence, like DNA?

Share this post


Link to post

Why does there have to be DNA evidence that Joseph Smith fathered children with his wives? I don't believe Joseph Smith had children with any of his wives other than Emma, but that doesn't change any single thought-provoking thing in Cinepro's list.

Share this post


Link to post

Why does there have to be DNA evidence that Joseph Smith fathered children with his wives? I don't believe Joseph Smith had children with any of his wives other than Emma, but that doesn't change any single thought-provoking thing in Cinepro's list.

Please read the entire thread and where this issue was brought up.

Share this post


Link to post

So the principle of plural marriage is either a principle of exaltation or a principle of damnation depending on what the current God commands. Which principles of exaltation does God follow?

I would say so. In OT times to make animal sacrifeces was a matter of obidience. After Christ was sacrificed we don't have to make animal sacrifices. If people of OT didn't obey this commandment they wouldn't have exaltation. Now it is not important for our exaltation.

It doesn't matter what kind of commandments God gives us. It is important how we obey those commandments.

Share this post


Link to post

In regards to the ninth point:

"I will pass over the temptations which I had during the twenty four hours after my father introduced to me the principle and asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph who came next morning and with my parents I heard him teach and explain the principle of Celestial marriage - after which he said to me , 'If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that . . . of your fathers household and all of your kindred.' I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward." - Helen Mar Whitney Journal, Helen Mar Autobiography, Woman's Exponent, 1881

Great quote. My thoughts.

First of all Helen talks about Celestial marriage. Celeatial marriage is not earthly marriage. So, what does it mean? Does it mean that Helen had sexual relationship with JS? So, I ask you:"what is Celestial marriage? Do you know? Does Celesatial marriage require sexual relashionships here on earth?"

Then she said that this step will ensure her exaltation. Did she say or JS said that plural marriage is necessary for salvation or exaltation? No, I don't see it here. What I see is that OBIDIENCE to what God through His prophet asked her to do IS IMPORTANT for salvation and exaltation.

Let's take Word of Wisdom. It is not important what we eat or what we drink(Lord said this when He explained about Sacrament).

But our OBIDIENCE to WHATEVER Lord asks is important for our salvation and exaltation.

Share this post


Link to post

Alla:

As we are to take care of, and nurture our bodies it actually it matters a great deal what we put into our bodies.

God isn't going to hold responsible those that didn't follow the WoW if they never covenanted not to follow it.

Share this post


Link to post

Alla:

As we are to take care of, and nurture our bodies it actually it matters a great deal what we put into our bodies.

God isn't going to hold responsible those that didn't follow the WoW if they never covenanted not to follow it.

I agree with you. I only quoted D&C 27:2 "it mattereth not what ye shall drink when ye partake of sacrament".

Lord talks here that when we partake of the sacrament we can choose anything (that is not harmful for our bodies of course), it doesn't matter. But only one thing is matter:" we do it with an eye single to His glory"

Share this post


Link to post

The sixth point you are using what source? Just your own interpretation of, what? And the "which probably" is not convincing, at all.

A journal with (........) in between the words? Seriously?

Does anyone know what legitimate evidence is? Anyone?

It's become quite clear that you are impervious to any kind of evidence (including direct quotations of the Book of Mormon by cinepro).

I once again suggest you to pick up a copy of In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton. And please don't disregard the evidence he provides just because he's (apparently) not the kind of Mormon you think he should be.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post

The answer is in Abraham 3:23-25

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

I would say so. In OT times to make animal sacrifeces was a matter of obidience. After Christ was sacrificed we don't have to make animal sacrifices. If people of OT didn't obey this commandment they wouldn't have exaltation. Now it is not important for our exaltation.

It doesn't matter what kind of commandments God gives us. It is important how we obey those commandments.

Let's take Word of Wisdom. It is not important what we eat or what we drink(Lord said this when He explained about Sacrament).

But our OBIDIENCE to WHATEVER Lord asks is important for our salvation and exaltation.

I think you guys are saying that obedience is the overarching principle. To which principles is God obedient? Can these principles change?

Share this post


Link to post

I think you guys are saying that obedience is the overarching principle.

1 Samuel 15:22 "And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams."

To which principles is God obedient? Can these principles change?

What does that mean? Doctrine doesn't change. Practice in how to implement the doctrine changes and always has.

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't say the "principle" but rather the practice. That is a huge difference and it is determined by the times and needs of the people. Technically there is still plural marriage today in the form of sealings to more than one wife when one is deceased. Practice in the church from OT times to the present has always been subject to change. Doctrine remains the same.

Great quote. My thoughts.

First of all Helen talks about Celestial marriage. Celeatial marriage is not earthly marriage. So, what does it mean? Does it mean that Helen had sexual relationship with JS? So, I ask you:"what is Celestial marriage? Do you know? Does Celesatial marriage require sexual relashionships here on earth?"

Then she said that this step will ensure her exaltation. Did she say or JS said that plural marriage is necessary for salvation or exaltation?

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential to the salvation of exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false." - Joseph F. Smith, JD 20:28

Share this post


Link to post

It's become quite clear that you are impervious to any kind of evidence (including direct quotations of the Book of Mormon by cinepro).

I once again suggest you to pick up a copy of In Sacred Loneliness by Todd Compton. And please don't disregard the evidence he provides just because he's (apparently) not the kind of Mormon you think he should be.

Cheers.

Shhhhh about the DNA evidence. Let's just skip it. rolleyes.gif

So that I am understanding correctly, an untrustworthy book described as "speculative" and random tertiary quotes from journals that conveniently have (........) in between the words trumps the DNA evidence. Okay, got it now! good.gif

Share this post


Link to post
God isn't going to hold responsible those that didn't follow the WoW if they never covenanted not to follow it.

I know this may be a stupid question, but what does "covenanting to follow the word of wisdom" mean?

What if you've tried to quite smoking, and even asked God for help?

Is that "covenanting"?

Share this post


Link to post

Shhhhh about the DNA evidence. Let's just skip it. rolleyes.gif

So that I am understanding correctly, an untrustworthy book described as "speculative" and random tertiary quotes from journals that conveniently have (........) in between the words trumps the DNA evidence. Okay, got it now! good.gif

Compton claims that Joseph Smith's only confirmed child from a polyandrous union was Josephine Rosetta Lyon. (p. 19)

"Perego also has gathered DNA samples on about 120 descendants of Josephine Rosetta Lyon, daughter of Sylvia Sessions Lyon, who was one of Smith's wives. But Y chromosome evidence, used to determine paternal relationships from father to son, is not present for Lyon because she is female. The effort to determine Lyon's parentage is ongoing, he said." - Your link

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...