Post-Manifesto Polygamy

[dacook]

President Woodruff himself married a new Plural Wife in 1897, Lydia Mountford, who was a Jew, born in Palestine and had lectured widely throughout the United States on Palestine.

[HiJolly]

I know that the new Plural Marriage of Wilford Woodruff was performed a steamship on the Pacific Ocean, between San Francisco and Portland.  However, wasn't that area of the ocean also still under the United States Juridiction? 

I don't know.

Wasn't performing Polygamous Marriages illegal there also? 

You mean in Mexico? I think so but I don't really know.

Plus, were all of the seven Apostles who entered into new Plural Marriages after the Manifesto really performed outside the United States?

I again don't know.

This reply won't give you any joy (ie. answers), sorry.

HiJolly

[Baeth_Ku]

So, here's my question:

When the Lord commanded the Nephites to live monogamously in Jacob 2, was that according to the LGT or Hemispheric model?

Could Gidgakrappi march to the Land of Desolation and marry as many women as he wanted, and it was OK because the Lord was only concerned with monogamy in the LGT zone where the Nephite king had instituted monogamy as the law of the land?

Just curious.

[charity]

Baeth_Ku, Pardon me if I don't see you as just curious. I see your post as just rude and insulting.

[Baeth_Ku]

charity:

Baeth_Ku, Pardon me if I don't see you as just curious.  I see your post as just rude and insulting.

Interesting. While we are assessing each other's posts here, let me say that I find yours deeply lacking any sense of humor.

[charity]

Baeth_Ku, I never find humor in taking someone's religion and making tacky jokes about it.

[Baeth_Ku]

charity:

Baeth_Ku, I never find humor in taking someone's religion and making tacky jokes about it.

Well, I find humor in my own religion (active Mormon) to be refreshing to the soul. I trust not everyone here is a sour puss.

[charity]

I don't find tacky humorous. And when it shows up in religious references, it is irreverent. And lightminded.

[Baeth_Ku]

I don't find tacky humorous.  And when it shows up in religious references, it is irreverent. And lightminded.

You know, this reminds me of a wonderful Simpsons episode, in which Bart thinks that Ned Flanders has killed his wife. When Ned's wife, Maude, reappears, she explains Ned's statement that she had gone to be with God as "going to Bible camp to learn to be more judgmental."

Where did you acquire your acumen?

[charity]

Baeth_Ku, now I understand. Your enjoyment of the Simpsons has desensitized you to tacky. But I wish you would think that sacred things should be protected from such wordly practices.

You can insult me all you want, with sly cracks and jabs. I am thick skinned. But I am protective of the sacred and beautiful things in my life.

[Widow's Son]

To me the most important thing to always remember whenever referencing Mike Quinn's work is that by his own admission in his own works, after having researched everthing that he has, compounded by the fact that the once married father is now gay and has been excommunicated, he still, after everything, REMAINS A BELIEVER IN THE RESTORATION.

I find that quite inspiring.

[cougarfan]

Well, well. This thread pops up again and again. My two cents:

At the time of the Manifesto, 1) many LDS men were incarcerated for polygamy, 2) many polygamous wives were living on the hide out (including using false names) to protect their husbands, 3) the marshalls were about to confiscate all Church property including the Temples, and 4) John Taylor had apparently had a sizable number of Apostles swear they would never stop the practice. Emotions were very high.

Given the energy and zeal (and covertness) with which the Church members were involved relative to the practice, it is understandable that nobody believed it was really over. So it was over once, and then it was over again, and finally it was really really over.

A number of the brethern (with sealing keys) believed that they had a scriptural right to practice and officiate it. There was a train of thought by some that it simply wasn't over. There was a feeling by others that they could use their "own" priesthood personally and aside from the Church. This was a confusion between the Church today as a Priesthood of Presidency and the ancient Priesthood which was Patriarchial. People are people, and this is evidence that some people were really grasping at straws and totally misunderstanding their own personal importance.

Whether these men are forgiven or will be punished is really the Lord's call and He will pass Final Judgement. By the end of Joseph F. Smith's presidency, he had done his best to "unwind" many post manifesto relationships. I personally know of one case where the husband was ordered to support but not cohabitate with the new plural wife. I also know personally that one of the post manifesto marriages of one of the Apostles was cancelled for time and the sister in question was married to another single man for time. Finally, Heber J. Grant followed through with really really really really ending the practice.

People that think of history as black and white don't understand history. People that want to pass judgements on ninteenth century men using their twenty-first century morality are idiots. Those with absolutist notions of right or wrong need only look to the scriptures for evidence that things are often "messy".

None of this proves anything about the truthfulness of the Gospel. It does prove that some men had such passion on this question that they acted passionately and made some errors in judgment in that passion.

[Baeth_Ku]

charity:

You can insult me all you want, with sly cracks and jabs.  I am thick skinned.  But I am protective of the sacred and beautiful things in my life.

Yeah, you are thick skinned. So thick skinned that you couldn't wait to take offense at a harmless joke. Funny you seem to be the single person who felt the need to say something about it. Perhaps you should consider that. If your conclusion is that you are the only saint with the courage to run to the rescue of holiness, try again.

I am beginning to understand how your handle, charity, is appropriate. You give everyone ample opportunity to test their own. I think I failed this time. Keep up the good work.

[charity]

Baeth_Ku, I don't know why you are so hostile to me. You are putting all kinds of motives and thoughts on me. I see plenty of people who are at least as much, if not more willing to "run to the rescue of holiness" as I am. It is hard to on the printed page to hear emotion. But I do not feel I have deserved what appears in your written words to be such sneering contempt.

If you had more experience on the board, you would have known that I have posted on several threads that irreverent treatment of sacred subjects bothers me. And I have complained to a number of others. They don't get all riled and hostile in the way you did.

I am sorry you are so prickly. I don't apologize for complaining, however.

[dimbulb]

I've always wondered if Richard Lyman had asked permission before taking a plural wife, would he have been excommunicated? I suspect that his excommunication had more to do with his having done an unauthorized sealing rather than for being a polygamist.

[Baeth_Ku]

charity:

Baeth_Ku, I don't know why you are so hostile to me. You are putting all kinds of motives and thoughts on me. I see plenty of people who are at least as much, if not more willing to "run to the rescue of holiness" as I am.  It is hard to on the printed page to hear emotion.  But I do not feel I have deserved what appears in your written words to be such sneering contempt.

Let me see, my 'hostility' may have been raised because you continue to misconstrue my humor at the expense of apologists as humor at the expense of my faith. Then you proceed to judge my taste and character on that basis. I am surprised that you can't understand why that might bug me a little.

You see, apologia is not sacred.

You remark that plenty of people who are willing to rush to the rescue of holiness. I agree, and I recommend that you examine their methods more closely. They didn't join you in complaining about my joke on this thread.

charity:

If you had more experience on the board, you would have known that I have posted on several threads that irreverent treatment of sacred subjects bothers me.

What is your gauge of my experience? The number of posts I have made? The start date of my membership? A speculation based on an extrapolation from the two? Do you think it might be possible that I have lurked much more than I have posted?

For your information, charity, I was well aware of your m.o. before I posted that joke.

charity:

I am sorry you are so prickly. I don't apologize for complaining, however.

I kinda doubt you are sorry about anything. My guess is that your overdeveloped sense of righteousness makes you thrilled with the chance to engage in such scraps. If some of us weren't "so prickly" as you put it, then where would your fun go?

But, if my continued "prickliness" hasn't made you too angry to consider anything further of what I write, let me try to explain my initial joke.

I can accept that you may have been offended by what I wrote. I am coming to terms with that. I don't apologize for my joke. There are folks out there who will be offended by practically anything, and I don't make it my business to avoid offending everyone. I try to stick to avoiding offense in things that really matter.

"Really matter?" you might reply. "Doesn't the Book of Mormon, don't the prophets matter?" Yes, they do matter. I agree. What does not matter, in my opinion, in terms of things that are sacred and not to be mocked, is the interminable arguments on this board. They deserve to be mocked as much as anything else, and I don't think the Lord will have a problem with me being flippant or satiric of you guys' arguments and theories.

With that I close.

[charity]

Baeth-Ku wrote: "For your information, charity, I was well aware of your m.o. before I posted that joke."

That is interesting. But I would like to know what my "m.o." is, if you wouldn't mind taking a few minutes to respond. mbeesley says I "testify."

You also wrote: "I kinda doubt you are sorry about anything."

That is where you are wrong, again. I am sorry about a lot of things. One thing that causes me great sadness is people who should know better who treat serious and sacred subjects lightly. I can accept that people who are not of our faith would do so. But for active members, I can't for the life of me see how they can feel justified in referring to the prophets by their initials or last names, instead of using proper titles. Or how they can parody scripture, as you did, by using the term Gidkacrappi. And obviously, you and I disagree on what would fall into the category of "lightminded."

But I don't see how that should bring about person attacks. I complained about what you did. You attacked me on who I am. That is a real sadness.

[Baeth_Ku]

charity:

But I would like to know what my "m.o."  is, if you wouldn't mind taking a few minutes to respond.  mbeesley says I "testify."

We can start with you getting over-worked about material very few others take umbrage at or run to correct and then pronouncing how you look down on such things.

charity:

That is where you are wrong, again.  I am sorry about a lot of things.

Since I was referring to your statement about my prickliness on this thread, I stand by my words. You are free to be saddened and sorry about as many things as you like. I just don't believe those things include me being prickly.

charity:

But for active members, I can't for the life of me see how they can feel justified in referring to the prophets by their initials or last names, instead of using proper titles. Or how they can parody scripture, as you did, by using the term Gidkacrappi.  And obviously, you and I disagree on what would fall into the category of "lightminded."

Oh my goodness! Referring to prophets by their initials or last names!?!? Call the bishop! Where's my stake president's number when you need it?

My use of the false name "Gidgakrappi," to help you think this through a bit better, was intended to demonstrate that my comments had little to do with the actual Book of Mormon. Perhaps my reference to modern theories about the book applying in the narrative of the ancient text, as a device therein, were not a sufficient clue for you.

charity:

And obviously, you and I disagree on what would fall into the category of "lightminded."

On this we can agree, and I will not lose any sleep over your opinion on the matter. We are all guided by our own lights, conscience, and to the highest degree possible, by the Holy Spirit. If my sensitivities are different than yours, we can let the Lord judge between me and thee. I get your point that you don't like my sense of propriety, and I get that you feel a need to criticize my words based on your own sense of the same. Can we move on now?

[USU78]

Hi HiJolly,

You wrote:

Some believe that the FIRST Manifesto was only applicable in the USofA and it's territories.

[USU78]

Quite possibly it [sealing to Woodruff aboard ship somewhere in the Pacific]occurred, but is not proven.

"Quite"?

Where do you get "quite"?

[Anna]

This thread got my interest and I was actually looking at lds.org to see what if any information they may have disclosed about this topic or this period. [And I hope this is ok to post here as I do not want to derail this topic.]

While there did not appear to be anything on the manifesto, the do have a very interesting site on the History of the Prophets here:

http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/leaders.jsp

They have some very interestion information about the histroy of each prophet and list all of the significant events. What seemed rather surprising was that it appears only the wives of those prophets who practiced polygamy are mentioned as significant events and, for all prophets before G. Albert Smith Jr., none of the polygamous wives are mentioned at all.

There were probably a lot of great women/wives of the prophets who practiced polygamy but none were mentioned as a significant event, yet all the monagamous wives were. Is the church sill ashamed of polygamy? Why wouldn't they give due credit to the wives of polygamous wives if such marriages were in fact commanded by God? Certainly on a website there is enough bandwith to make mention of them. And I would hope that the church knows enough about their own prophets to know who there wives were. It seems like such a slight to all the great women who supported those prophets who were commanded to enter into polygamy!

If polygamy was, in fact, a commandment of God, shouldn't the Church celebrate this fact with those seeking to understand thier history. Especially on their official website describing their own "History".

[Rollo Tomasi]

To me the most important thing to always remember whenever referencing Mike Quinn's work is that by his own admission in his own works, after having researched everthing that he has, compounded by the fact that the once married father is now gay and has been excommunicated, he still, after everything, REMAINS A BELIEVER IN THE RESTORATION.

I find that quite inspiring.

I do, too; unfortunately, Church leaders did not and went on to excommunicate him.

[charity]

Baeth_Ku, I am willing to move on. I will note that you failed to respond to what I thought was an important point: I generally comment on behavior. I do not comment on qualities of character. I will continue to limit my comments about individual post-ers to that. I hope you learn to refrain from denigrating character. It keeps the dialogue on a higher level.

I have moved on.

[dimbulb]

I do, too; unfortunately, Church leaders did not and went on to excommunicate him.

It is really strange. Here's a guy who embodies what President Packer was talking about in his "Mantle" talk, and yet he still believes.

[Nighthawke]

What seemed rather surprising was that it appears only the wives of those prophets who practiced polygamy are mentioned as significant events and, for all prophets before G. Albert Smith Jr., none of the polygamous wives are mentioned at all.

Um, maybe I'm not looking at the same webpage as you but I couldn't find any mention of wives at all under significant events.