Polygamy Redux

[Confidential Informant]

Nighthawke,

Thank you for your input. I'll be interested to see how this additional information is processed and used by either Froggie or Elect Lady, neither of whom is so far inclined to respond.

Maybe Froggie was mad that I called her post irrelevant.

C.I.

[Dill Pickles]

I believe strong language was necessary because of the importance of section 132 vis-

[Confidential Informant]

I believe strong language was necessary because of the importance of section 132 vis-

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe strong language was necessary because of the importance of section 132 vis-

[Al Hoffman]

Meanwhile, approximately 40 years of plural marriage solidified the Church and established enough believing households and lineages that the restored gospel could begin to thrive and spread around the world.

God does move in a mysterious way.

There really is no evidence that Church growth during that time ( or subsequent time) was the result of plural marriage. According to census reports of the time there were certainly enough men to continue impregnating the women, without the need for plural marriage. Even President Hinckley stated that only a very small percentage of the people actually practiced plural marriage.

For all we know, the doctrine of plural marriage may have been a large stumbling block to many potential converts over that 40 year period. It may be fair to say that the Church grew enough during that time to thrive and spread around the world, inspite of plural marriage, rather than because of it.

[alter idem]

Meanwhile, approximately 40 years of plural marriage solidified the Church and established enough believing households and lineages that the restored gospel could begin to thrive and spread around the world.

God does move in a mysterious way.

There really is no evidence that Church growth during that time ( or subsequent time) was the result of plural marriage. According to census reports of the time there were certainly enough men to continue impregnating the women, without the need for plural marriage. Even President Hinckley stated that only a very small percentage of the people actually practiced plural marriage.

For all we know, the doctrine of plural marriage may have been a large stumbling block to many potential converts over that 40 year period. It may be fair to say that the Church grew enough during that time to thrive and spread around the world, inspite of plural marriage, rather than because of it.

Yes, but as I see it, it was the quality of those marriages that made a difference. The sacrifice that was required of those great men and women sanctified them and left a lasting legacy for generations to come. It just would not have been the same without those 40 years of polygamy. It served it's purpose.

[Scott Lloyd]

Meanwhile, approximately 40 years of plural marriage solidified the Church and established enough believing households and lineages that the restored gospel could begin to thrive and spread around the world.

God does move in a mysterious way.

There really is no evidence that Church growth during that time ( or subsequent time) was the result of plural marriage. According to census reports of the time there were certainly enough men to continue impregnating the women, without the need for plural marriage. Even President Hinckley stated that only a very small percentage of the people actually practiced plural marriage.

For all we know, the doctrine of plural marriage may have been a large stumbling block to many potential converts over that 40 year period. It may be fair to say that the Church grew enough during that time to thrive and spread around the world, inspite of plural marriage, rather than because of it.

You have quite missed my point.

A person is far more apt to receive and embrace gospel values and beliefs from his parents than from being proselytized.

Since plural marriage was practiced among only the most devout Church members, it had the effect of rapidly creating numerous family lineages in which the gospel was transmitted from parents to children to grandchildren and so on.

In a couple of generations, this gave the Church a solid foundation, first in the western United States, which became the base of operations from which it could become global.

I seriously doubt this would have happened as quickly or effectively under a monogamous marriage system. In fact, given the intensity of the oppression to which the early Church was subjected, I dare say it might not have survived at all.

Years ago, a General Authority, speaking to departing missionaries at the Mission Home in Salt Lake City, would ask how many of them had plural marriage in their ancestry. Without exception, nearly every hand would be raised.

[Scott Lloyd]

Meanwhile, approximately 40 years of plural marriage solidified the Church and established enough believing households and lineages that the restored gospel could begin to thrive and spread around the world.

God does move in a mysterious way.

There really is no evidence that Church growth during that time ( or subsequent time) was the result of plural marriage. According to census reports of the time there were certainly enough men to continue impregnating the women, without the need for plural marriage. Even President Hinckley stated that only a very small percentage of the people actually practiced plural marriage.

For all we know, the doctrine of plural marriage may have been a large stumbling block to many potential converts over that 40 year period. It may be fair to say that the Church grew enough during that time to thrive and spread around the world, inspite of plural marriage, rather than because of it.

Yes, but as I see it, it was the quality of those marriages that made a difference. The sacrifice that was required of those great men and women sanctified them and left a lasting legacy for generations to come. It just would not have been the same without those 40 years of polygamy. It served it's purpose.

Well said, alter idem.

By instituting plural marriage among the early Latter-day Saints, the Lord did indeed "raise up seed," just as is stated in the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

Since plural marriage was practiced among only the most devout Church members

I am cautious enough about how prone some people are to misreading others' comments that I feel the need to clarify that there were plenty of very devout couples among the monogamous ones, that all that is being claimed is that the polygamous marriages were drawn from the pool of devout members (it would require both parents being devout for one thing which was not always the case).

[Nighthawke]

I believe strong language was necessary because of the importance of section 132 vis-

[Al Hoffman]

I'm not missing your point, I think you are entitled to what you see as a valid opinion on the matter. I am saying that you lack the evidence.

I do not see the evidence that the emergence of the Church was due to plural marriage or that without the institution of plural marriage, it would not have taken the hold it did, and thrive and spread.

By comparison, The Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovahs Witness's were both religions which began in the same approxiamate time frame as the LDS Church and within the same country. The Seventh Day Advents were formally organized in 1863 and the Jehovah Witness's around 1870, I believe.

The Seventh Day Adventists have close to 14 milllion members in over 200 countries, while the Jehovah Witness's have close to 7 million ACTIVE members ( defined as members that weekly are involved in giving bible lessons ). They had close to 16 million attend their annual celebration of Christ conference.

Neither of these groups needed plural marriage to emerge (from the same time period) thrive, and become world religions with millions of members. Conversely, polygamous groups that have splintered off from the mainstream LDS Church, have really not grown much despite the same types of inter-family indoctrination ( and I'm not meaning that in a negative way).

I personally reject the opinion that the LDS Church would not have grown, or even failed or sputtered out without plural marriage. I would like to believe that it would have grown because of its doctrine and what it had to offer. I agree that there was a climate of opposition to the early Church, but how much of that was a result of the practice of polygamy or the rumors of polygamy being practiced.

I do not mean my comments to take away from those whose ancestors practiced polygamy. My wifes ancestors practiced polygamy and there is certainly alot to learn about sacrafice and commitment from them, and alot of reasons to be proud of them and be grateful for them. I would hope we would feel that way for those who didn't practice polygamy.

[Dill Pickles]

I believe strong language was necessary because of the importance of section 132 vis-

[Dill Pickles]

I believe strong language was necessary because of the importance of section 132 vis-

[Nighthawke]

We know that many were divorced; what would be really interesting would be to find out how many of those who were divorced either stayed single rather than marry polygamously again, or who married monogamously after their divorce.

They usually remarried polygamously, I've covered this before, you continue to ignore information.

As for your other comments, Wazing/insert-a-myriad-of-aliases-here, I'm not sure I want to re-engage in conversation considering our past encounters. I'll have to mull it over.

Well, big snowstorm on the way here and I have to step out to buy the grandbaby his one-year-old birthday present before it starts flaking so I'm off. (Don'tcha love grandbabies? )

[juliann]

You say the principle was not revealed in a nice neat package. There has yet to be sufficient evidence produced that God revealed it at all.

And what would that be? A signed package from heaven delivered by a crew of angels into your hands? Which screenname should they address it to? The only way one can ever know if something comes from God is to have a witness. If you want to continue to call those women who claimed to have that witness liars then you go for it.

I find it odd that God would not "micro-reveal" this all-important principle, yet reveals the most micromanaging imaginable in the matter of the completely unimportant principle of how many holes a woman can have in her ears. The two views of God just do not mix.

As usual, blink/serenity/harmony/WAZing/Dill Pickles, you provide nothing but the meanderings of your own mind. Never any data. Never any sources. Never any documentation. Just endless blatherings and moral posturing. I find it odd that someone who has trolled under different screennames for years would feel entitled to give anyone advice on what seems right.

It would not be surprising to find that not "all" who lived it were as entranced with the principle as you are. We know that many were divorced; what would be really interesting would be to find out how many of those who were divorced either stayed single rather than marry polygamously again, or who married monogamously after their divorce.

Here is a little task for you, blink/serenity/harmony/WAZing/Dill Pickles, you provide a quote! Show us where anyone has ever made any claim that everyone who entered into polygamy was "entranced" with it. And then provide us your interesting stats on divorce rates.

[Froggie]

CI,

I've read your response and unfortunately am on my way out the door for the weekend. I will have to respond on Monday. Just wanted you to know that I was not ignoring you.

Edited to add that Yes-I was mad you called my thoughts irrelevant. I posted my thoughts as a response to your direct personal question in this thread about my style of posting. You in turn dismissed my personal response is irrelevant. I cannot conceive of ever being so uncivil or disrespectful in such a manner as this.

Please do not ask me a personal question if you have full intention of dismissing it based solely on the fact is coming from a personal standpoint. I have better things to do in life than be baited up and then slapped down for sport.

I'll be back. It is a gorgeous weather here in sunny Utah!

Frog

[Nighthawke]

As usual, blink/serenity/harmony/WAZing/Dill Pickles, you provide nothing but the meanderings of your own mind. Never any data. Never any sources. Never any documentation. Just endless blatherings and moral posturing. I find it odd that someone who has trolled under different screennames for years would feel entitled to give anyone advice on what seems right.

Ugh. Thanks for the flashback Juliann.

I don't mind discussing polygamy, it is one of my favourite subjects here on the FAIR boards. Having said that, "endless blatherings and moral posturing" (how many years has it been Waz?) doesn't appeal to me at all.

[juliann]

Joseph perverted this law in his practicing of polygamy. Brigham Young lived it far better than Joseph as it is outlined in 132. At least we can see some righteous seed out of the whole thing. And as far as I know, he did not deceive his current wives by marrying other ones in secret behind their back. If you are a believer, do you think God condoned Joseph's secrecy from Emma? If God didn't like it, why didn't he just take out Emma if she was such a stumbling block.

To get this back on track for Froggie, this is what I see as the crux of her position. The only thing that bothers me is that polygamy cannot be discussed without words like "perverted". I don't see how that furthers the discussion. Other than that, I think this will always be a conundrum with what happened and what was written and Froggie stated this quite well.

[Dale]

Joseph perverted this law in his practicing of polygamy.

[juliann]

Personally if Emma wasn't mature enough to handle her husbands reputed practice of plural marriage she did not need to know everything. But reportedly she had seen D.&C. 132 so her husband reportedly told her eventually.

I do not see this as a matter of maturity. I do not blame Emma for her reactions one bit. It cannot be disputed that she knew of some of the sealings. She also seemed to control the household and Joseph very effectively. When she ordered women out of the house, out they went. The only way he could continue was to keep it secret because he certainly was not standing up to her. So the question becomes the same old question of was it ok to deceive Emma. The logical answer is no. But we werent' there and it is something than can never be understood in all of its nuances so it always comes down to who can call who the most ugly names. That is why everybody gets tired of it. What we need is more information about what went on not more pejoratives.

[Confidential Informant]

To get this back on track for Froggie, this is what I see as the crux of her position. The only thing that bothers me is that polygamy cannot be discussed without words like "perverted". I don't see how that furthers the discussion. Other than that, I think this will always be a conundrum with what happened and what was written and Froggie stated this quite well.

But the point of my thread is "is their any evidence that God ever disapproved of it. As my initial post posits, I do not think there is. All of this about Joseph and Emma is very interesting but, ultimately, tangential to the core issue.

the scriptures + 5000+ years of history and the witness and testimony of those who actually participated in it simply won't support the Froggie/Brackite/Wazing et al., proposition that it was never sanctioned and always wrong.

And, as noted, no one has yet provided me with a substantial reason as to why I should believe their view as opposed to the weight of the evidence against them.

C.I.

Froggie: I look forward to your response.

ci

[Nighthawke]

D.& C. 132 Emma's soul at judgement & body at the time of her death. The Lord purportedly didn't want to kill Emma, but warned her of possible damnation

And what is "damnation" in this case? What is "damnation" in LDS theology?

[charity]

From the topical guide: "The state of being stopped in one

[Dale]

The proof texts used all with the possible exception of D.&C. 132:4,6,27 refer in my mind only damnation to what Evangelicals term hell, and LDS call outer darkness. I think D.&C. 132 has Emma being damned in hell. and not be saved from outer darkness. I don't know if the LDS Bible Dictionary's definition for damnation is true. I read through the proof texts but they say something different to me.

I believe if you don't have eternal life you go to outer darkness.

Mature is possibly an imprecise word to describe what Emmas reaction to this topic was said to have been. It is a divisive practice to deal with as anti-polygamist as she was. It would be easier to accept the many platonic sealings of her husband But the earthly practice would be much harder for a wife to accept. Perhaps I should have said Emma Smith was not liberal enough to agree to disagree with her husband. She was to conservative for her own good.

As to whether God approved, or dissaproved of it anciently. God was silent on the matter so either tolerated, condoned it. But for some reason outside of the Book of Mormon writers never expressly forbid it in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is so vague I can honestly see how some could see no conflict between D.&c. 132 & the Old Testament.

[Nighthawke]

The proof texts used all with the possible exception of D.&C. 132:4,6,27 refer in my mind only damnation to what Evangelicals term hell, and LDS call outer darkness. I think D.&C. 132 has Emma being damned in hell. and not be saved from outer darkness. I don't know if the LDS Bible Dictionary's definition for damnation is true. I read through the proof texts but they say something different to me.

I believe if you don't have eternal life you go to outer darkness.

I'm not interested in what "you" believe Dale. I'm only interested in LDS theology at this point. And LDS theology says that anything less than the celestial kingdom can be defined as damnation. I don't for one second believe that Emma's reticence about plural marriage would land her in perdition/outer darkness. Absolutely not. Emma never denied the Saviour.