Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Post-Manifesto Polygamy


Brackite

Recommended Posts

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.

Y'know Dimbulb, there are times when I think your screen name is altogether too self-effacing, in a Uriah Heep sort of way.

You're not dim at all.

You're really rather sly.

No, Lyman was not excommunicated for "having done an unauthorized sealing." Nor was he excommunicated "for being a polygamist." The charge was adultery.

So your malicious little insinuation is false.

But to answer your question: if Lyman had asked permission to enter into plural marriage, he would have been refused.

Don't do it again.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment
No, Lyman was not excommunicated for "having done an unauthorized sealing." Nor was he excommunicated "for being a polygamist." The charge was adultery.

Richard Lyman considered his 20-year union with the lady in question as a "plural marriage" (he performed the sealing ceremony himself a la Willard Richards, who did the same likely twice). The Church considered it "adultery." In the end, God will decide.

Link to comment
Well now, there is the inconvenient little fact that he is (and was at the time) a very active, practicing homosexual.

I don't believe he was a practicing homosexual at that time. My understanding is that he "came out" later.

He was quoted in "Out" magazine as saying that he'd always been "gay" and that he was "overwhelmed" by his homosexual urges.

Either way, do not put words in my mouth about the nature of sin.

When did I do that?

Rollo,

you wrote:

Quinn has said his homosexuality was not a charge against him in his disciplinary proceeding.

Oh, well that settles it then. What need is there to hear both sides of the story? When Quinn speaks, the thinking has been done--at least, for some.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

dimbulb:

I don't believe he was a practicing homosexual at that time. My understanding is that he "came out" later.

While I have only met Dr. Quinn once, and most of what I know of him is secondhand through a mutual friend, I would add that it was some time after he was ex'ed before he started engaging in homosexual activities. I really don't know for sure what he is doing right now. If you want to hear me get self-righteous--I think it is really sad that his preferences in this area are pulled up so frequently in connection with his testimony and his scholarship. I know plenty of people who struggle with sins of various kinds who still maintain a testimony. To scrutinize Quinn on this point is to suggest that homosexual acts constitute a special brand of sin which somehow exclude the possibility of a genuine faith. I have personally known people who struggle with their sexual orientation, and are even excommunicated over it, who continue to have a deep testimony of the Restored Gospel. I am ashamed every time one of my co-religionists brings this up in connection with Quinn as though this should tarnish his sincerity.

I am not speaking to you dimbulb.

Link to comment
So your malicious little insinuation is false.

It wasn't meant as malicious (yeah, I know, like you believe that). It just occurred to me that the main difference between his relationship and other post-manifesto marriages was that he did the "sealing" himself without authorization (well that and it was in 1925, so much later).

I would consider it adultery, and obviously the church did, too. I guess I was just pondering the possible. Sorry if I offended you.

Link to comment
Quinn has said his homosexuality was not a charge against him in his disciplinary proceeding.

Oh, well that settles it then. What need is there to hear both sides of the story? When Quinn speaks, the thinking has been done--at least, for some.

I'd love to hear the other side, but we only have Quinn's account. Given his controversial writings at the time, I don't see why the Church felt it needed anything else (and, as Quinn recounts, an apostle contacted Quinn's local leaders about his writings, not his sexual orientation). If you have evidence that Quinn's homosexuality was involved at all in the reasons for his excommunication, then please share it. If not, then admit your bigotry is just that ... and don't do it again.

Link to comment
He was quoted in "Out" magazine as saying that he'd always been "gay" and that he was "overwhelmed" by his homosexual urges.

Most people who are gay say just that. Being gay does not mean you are practicing homosexual behavior. I'm heterosexual and probably pretty close to "overwhelmed" by heterosexual urges. Doesn't mean I'm guilty of adultery.

Link to comment

If you click on any of the prohets you'll get a page with a tab called "Significant Events".

And if you click on "Additional Resources" you get a list of publications.

For instance with reference to Pres. John Taylor the website lists:

Roberts, B. H. "The Life of John Taylor, Third President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

Now I have this book, originally published in 1892, it was recently reprinted in 2002. My copy dates back to a 1963 reprint. It is also available via GospeLink.com (a Deseret Book website/product).

If you turn to p. 464 you'll find photographs of John Taylor's wives. On p. 465 to 468 you'll find family history information (ie. wives and children). And beginning on page 471 to the end of the book on page 499 you can read "Biographies of the Wives of John Taylor."

So the information is available, you just have to do a few additional clicks or walk up to your bookshelf to look it up. Is that too difficult for some folks here?

Yea, thus saith Nighthawke; Ask and it shall be hard to find; seek and ye shall spend much time and resources; knock on the Additional Resources page wherein lie thirteen items which contain thousands of pages upon which you will find information which is now against the public image portrayed by the church.

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

"Quite"?

Where do you get "quite"?

I used "quite" because Givens used "strong" as his assessment of the circumstantial evidence.

After reading through the evidence Rollo provided, I'm actually less impressed.

Link to comment
Quinn has said his homosexuality was not a charge against him in his disciplinary proceeding.

Oh, well that settles it then. What need is there to hear both sides of the story? When Quinn speaks, the thinking has been done--at least, for some.

I'd love to hear the other side, but we only have Quinn's account. Given his controversial writings at the time, I don't see why the Church felt it needed anything else (and, as Quinn recounts, an apostle contacted Quinn's local leaders about his writings, not his sexual orientation). If you have evidence that Quinn's homosexuality was involved at all in the reasons for his excommunication, then please share it. If not, then admit your bigotry is just that ... and don't do it again.

As a committed anti-Mormon, you undoubtedly find it ideologically satisfying to malign the Church's moral stand against homosexual acts as "bigotry."

Sorry, [edited] I don't agree.

Regards,

Pahoran

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

"Quite"?

Where do you get "quite"?

I used "quite" because Givens used "strong" as his assessment of the circumstantial evidence.

After reading through the evidence Rollo provided, I'm actually less impressed.

Fair enough.

Link to comment

Hi cjcampbell,

You wrote:

Since Madame Mountford (maiden name Lydia Mary Olive Mamreoff von Finkelstein) was already married to Charles E. Mountford, it is unlikely that there was any sort of marriage between her and Wilford Woodruff, secret or not. They did develop a close and mutually respectful relationship and she was vicariously sealed to Wilford Woodruff in 1920, three years after she died. Again, if she had already been married to him, this would not have taken place in 1920. Wilford Woodruff's relationship with Madame Mountford is thoroughly analyzed in Thomas Alexander's biography.

The allegation that Madame Mountford would not have been married secretly to Wilford Woodruff on a ship in 1897 because when was sealed to Wilford Woodruff in the Salt Lake City Temple in 1920 is a very, very, weak conclusion. Joseph Smith married most of his plural wives secretly, and after he got killed and died, and the Nauvoo Temple was completed, he was sealed to a lot of his plural wives by proxy, even though he had already married nearly all of them before when he was still alive. I know that we don

Link to comment

It would be interesting to know:

1) how many of Joseph's marriages were consumated (and whether any were polyangrous), :unsure:

2) how many were "spiritual unions", and :P

3) how many were one sided sealing by women wanting to connect themselves to Joseph. <_<

I think that these catagories have a lot to do with discrepancies over how many wives there were.

Link to comment
Since the marriage of Madame Mountford and Wilford Woodruff very likely occurred on a ship, and that it was not in the Temple back then, then it would make a lot of pretty good sense that their relationship and/or marriage was (re-)sealed in the Temple.

Since the marriage is supposed to have taken place on board a ship and not a temple, then it is unlikely it would have taken place at all -- Wilford Woodruff had long taught that all plural marriages should take place in the temple and even had the endowment house torn down for performing unauthorized marriages.

I would like to see the strong circumstantial evidence that would convince me that Wilford Woodruff did something completely contrary to what he vehemently taught and believed for so long a time. What you are alleging is completely out of character for him.

On the other hand, for a critic of the church to manufacture 'evidence,' circumstantial or otherwise, is well within the realm of possibility. So such 'evidence' had better be extremely well documented and overwhelming.

Link to comment
It would be interesting to know:

1) how many of Joseph's marriages were consumated (and whether any were polyangrous), :unsure:

2) how many were "spiritual unions", and :P

3) how many were one sided sealing by women wanting to connect themselves to Joseph. <_<

I think that these catagories have a lot to do with discrepancies over how many wives there were.

Why would it be interesting to anyone except voyeurs and those looking to criticize the church no matter how silly their arguments. "Look, Matilda! Them Mormons were gittin' married and doin' stuff behind closed doors! Not at all out in the public streets like dogs and us'ns."

Link to comment
Why would it be interesting to anyone except voyeurs and those looking to criticize the church no matter how silly their arguments. "Look, Matilda! Them Mormons were gittin' married and doin' stuff behind closed doors! Not at all out in the public streets like dogs and us'ns."

It seems to be particularly interesting to LDS members who are troubled that Joseph took teenage girls as his wife. I suppose it's a comforting thought to believe that he never consummated those marriages.

Either way, there wouldn't be much to talk about here if Joseph hadn't denied practicing polygamy both in public and to his wife.

Link to comment

Hi dacook,

You wrote:

Many Saints felt at the time of the Manifesto that plural marriage was required for exaltation.  They were placed into a difficult dilemma, not having a full understanding or our advantage of historical perspective.

Yes, you are right about many of the Saints feeling at the time of the Manifesto, that plural marriage was required for exaltation. The main reason why was because some Their leaders pretty and very Much taught that Plural Marriage was required for their exaltaion. Please Check out: http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/required.htm

Link to comment
I am deleting off-topic posts and one-line cheap shots.  Do not turn this into a discussion about sex.

FWIW, me calling Rollo "Rotten Tomatoes" wasn't a cheap shot. That's his screen name in another forum.

Sorry to have made more work for you.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...