Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

When Do You Believe Latter Day Polygamy Began?


Free Agent

Recommended Posts

I would suspect none. I don't think anyone here is implying that they are losing their inheritance or their testimonies over this.

I really hope you are right. But questioning and criticizing the prophet is the first step on a bad road.

No, It's not. No matter how bad you wish it were true, simply saying it is, doesn't make it so.

Polygamy started and was permitted in Nauvoo!

Since this thread is not about the church's current stance, I don't see how this pertains to the discussion.

Actually, earlier than that. But that's okay. It doesn't matter. The Lord commands. His people obey.

Link to comment

So how many have read the accounts of the families ruined by polygamy? How many have looked into the accounts of "The lost boys"? How many have looked into the abuse of women in polygamy? Rotten, rotten, rotten, and if it were to be accepted as doctrine today it would lead to more rottenness than before because people are more wicked today.

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the early practice of the latter-day church or of the Ancient Patriarchs. These are modern practices you are referring to by apostate groups. I suspect that one reason, besides the fact we wanted to become part of the US and therefore had to abide by the law of the land, the Lord stopped the practice was because he foresaw the wickedness of the latter days and what could happen if evil men started abusing it. I do not see polygamy returning in the current society, nor does anyone else. But I do see it being practiced righteously during the Millennial reign of Christ.

Link to comment

Connolly -

Answer me this question - when we talk about the church moving west, what do you believe the majority of members of the church take that to mean

a) East coast westward

cool.gif Missouri/Nauvoo to the Great Salt Lake

I think 9 out of 10 would choose b, IMO

Free Agent

I disagree. You ask the majority of members to "correctly answer" the question, and they will come up with the right answer, they may not get the year exact, but the answer will identify that moving west began with the Kirtland era.

Link to comment
I'm amazed at how far members are willing to twist and turn in order to justify these statements. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that, yes he mispoke at that time?

Easier, but not true. My original comment still stands. He correctly answered the question asked. I'm amazed at how far some people are willing to twist and turn to find a misstatement.

Link to comment

Charity,

I agree with you that this discussion is sad, not for your reasons, but because some of us who genuinely have concerns are called "whiny" and "ignorant" by a certain poster, just because we didn't know about this. I have shared my concerns with my bishop and with a few other individuals close to me and they all have been very supportive and have concurred that not knowing about polygamy and the Joseph Smith angle is pretty common and not something we really discuss openly.

As far as your feelings that 12 words could make or break a testimony, that is so far from the truth. For me, this is just one more "nail in the coffin", one more inconsistency of many that I have discovered in my studies. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

Free Agent

Link to comment
For me, this is just one more "nail in the coffin", one more inconsistency of many that I have discovered in my studies. I wish it weren't so, but it is.

My experience has been that nearly all "inconsistencies" are in the mind of the beholder. Hence, my comments about the "whole truth" above.

Link to comment

Pretty much everything is west of where the Church began (upstate NY), and so they had already begun a more general westward migration when they were in Nauvoo, even if it isn't thought as West in modern times. If your going to criticize him for something, I would do it more for being so vague about it, but not outright lying. He didn't say it began in the 1850s or after the beginning of settlement in Utah. He made a a very vague statement. And with that said, I for one don't blame him. This country has a very upside-down view of individual rights, particularly in regards to religion, which is manifested in the still-standing stygmatization of Mormons as polygamists in spite of the fact that it has been almost 120 years since the First Presidency called to end the practice.

Still, I don't worry about this because there is nothing wrong with polygamy.

you are entitled to your opinion that "nothing is wrong with polygamy", sure, however, polygamy was dreadful to more than a few who lived it. Might I suggest that you read an LDS journal or two of lonely neglected women unable to properly care for her children who hardly saw the father on a regular basis.

And even Brigham Young was vexed in public, even in tabernacle speeches, on the problems found in polygamous marriages. He offered stern chastisements more than a couple of times and even threatened a time or two. Polygamy was a severe trial for many and for you to offer that there is nothing wrong with it suggests you haven't read much about those who lived it in the 19th century.

The LDS church issued a manifesto in 1890 that brough the polygamy sealing power for living Latter Day Saints to a halt. Mormons still embrace polygamy. A man can still have many wives sealed to him for eternity as soon as the first wife dies. If he marries another woman who is not sealed to another man, that woman is sealed to him also.

It is then accepted by the church and general membership who know about this multiplicity of wives scenario that this man, and by default the new bride, are now polygamists.

Noggin

Link to comment

What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the early practice of the latter-day church or of the Ancient Patriarchs. These are modern practices you are referring to by apostate groups. I suspect that one reason, besides the fact we wanted to become part of the US and therefore had to abide by the law of the land, the Lord stopped the practice was because he foresaw the wickedness of the latter days and what could happen if evil men started abusing it. I do not see polygamy returning in the current society, nor does anyone else. But I do see it being practiced righteously during the Millennial reign of Christ.

Link to comment

I find it interesting to note that men all over this country are having affairs right and left. They leave their families for a "newer" or "younger" woman and resent paying child support (or don't pay at all). They expect society to pay for their children or don't care that their ex-wives live in poverty while trying to raise their children. Wouldn't it just be better if men could take another wife (if they could afford it it and the first wife would allow it), than to just leave the family? It seems to me that adultery is so common, with such dire results for children, that polygamy would be the better solution (with the caveat that the man, and not society) would have to foot the cost . Why all the angst about polygamy?

Link to comment

When do you believe latter-day polygamy began?

Thoughts?????

I'd say, March 4, 1540, when Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, married a second concurrent wife, Margarethe von der Saale, in the presence of Bucer and Melancthon.

Although protestant leaders had privately encouraged King Henry VIII to consider similar action, when news of the Hesse situation became public, many publicly backpedaled.

Luther said in this context that it was not enough for a Christian to consider the acts of the patriarchs, but that he, like the patriarchs, must have special divine sanction.

Link to comment

No, It's not. No matter how bad you wish it were true, simply saying it is, doesn't make it so.

Polygamy started and was permitted in Nauvoo!

Since this thread is not about the church's current stance, I don't see how this pertains to the discussion.

Yes, it is. No matter how bad you wish it were a lie, simply saying that it isn't doesn't make it so. Polygamy wasn't practiced in open by the general body of the church until they moved out west! Don't blame President Hinckley because the question wasn't specific enough.

If you read the initial post, there have been several issues opened in this thread. One of them is that the church has been lying through its statements and curriculum. I'm putting forth the position that they've said all that they need to on the subject.

Link to comment

Kilgore - Trout

If you see my earlier post to Deborah regarding President Hinckley you'll see I don't fault him for not sharing our entire history on national tv, but when a representative of the Church, President Hinckley or anyone else is on national tv, I would expect honest answers. For so many of us here, it all comes down to what our definition of certain words are, in this case, the definition of the word honesty. Additionally, part of our 3 fold mission is to Proclaim the Gospel. Not just parts of the gospel, the GOSPEL. Last I checked, polygamy is still in D&C.

Free Agent

You have accused the leader of the LDS church of being a liar mulitiple times. Knock it off. Your disapproval or disagreement does not make the other person a "liar". If you can't have a civil discusion about tough topics without resorting to namecalling this isn't the board for you.

Link to comment

Orpheus

I agree that liar is a harsh word, and actually, I'm not comfortable with that which is why I quanitifed it later saying I wish President Hnckley had been more forthcoming rather than giving, IMO, part of the answer, the safe answer. I am trying to have a civil discussion. It is the personalities like yourself who cannot entertain the fact that our Prophet could be wrong, even though numerous times in the past prophets have been proven to be wrong. Unfortunately, all is not black or white. I do believe I have the right to question things which I find not in harmony with the way I have been taught. But you rub me the wrong way when you tell me to knock it off. How would you treat an investigator with the same concerns?????? Why are my questions any less important and why don't they deserve kind replies rather than your namecalling???

Free Agent

Link to comment

I find it interesting to note that men all over this country are having affairs right and left. They leave their families for a "newer" or "younger" woman and resent paying child support (or don't pay at all). They expect society to pay for their children or don't care that their ex-wives live in poverty while trying to raise their children. Wouldn't it just be better if men could take another wife (if they could afford it it and the first wife would allow it), than to just leave the family? It seems to me that adultery is so common, with such dire results for children, that polygamy would be the better solution (with the caveat that the man, and not society) would have to foot the cost . Why all the angst about polygamy?

Using that logic, would you be amenable to women taking more than one husband?

Link to comment

Orpheus

I agree that liar is a harsh word, and actually, I'm not comfortable with that which is why I quanitifed it later saying I wish President Hnckley had been more forthcoming rather than giving, IMO, part of the answer, the safe answer. I am trying to have a civil discussion. It is the personalities like yourself who cannot entertain the fact that our Prophet could be wrong, even though numerous times in the past prophets have been proven to be wrong. Unfortunately, all is not black or white. I do believe I have the right to question things which I find not in harmony with the way I have been taught. But you rub me the wrong way when you tell me to knock it off. How would you treat an investigator with the same concerns?????? Why are my questions any less important and why don't they deserve kind replies rather than your namecalling???

Free Agent

Of course you deserve proper replies, I don't think you will get them.

Firstly, whilst I very much concur with your general concerns about how the full problematic facts of polygamy are not honestly dealt with, Pres Hinckley didn't lie in this case, so whilst you may have later qualified your first post, those who do not want to face the problem will continue to use it to avoid the greater issue.

Secondly you are not going to find an answer that will satisfy you. There isn't one that most mormons can stomach. They state how critisising their leaders can lead to apostacy, yet will not face the possibility that mistakes of a serious nature may have been made and a real testimony can handle that. They can't get their head around that. You will continue to be frustrated, and may go innactive, not as they will presume because you questioned your leaders, but because you were willing to look seriously at moral issues they are not openly willing to discuss and the frustration at not being listened to will drive you away.

So forget the ones who won't answer you and start listening to those who have worked through the problems more honestly and come through it. Those who can file it away get along just fine , or so they think. You aren't one of them. Stop beating yourself up about it and focus on those who do listen i.e. ironduke. they can help you work through it if you want to.

Link to comment

Polygamy wasn't practiced in open by the general body of the church until they moved out west!

Which may be true, but it isn't what he was asked. Here is the question for you again: "When it started, when it allowed it? Any answer to a question of "started" and "allowed", that says "when the church moved out west, is at best, "putting a spin on it" at worst, dishonest. He elaborates "the figure I have is 2 to 5% of the membership practiced it." Which was it? It was either "open to the general body of the church", or the few elite who were allowed to practice it.

Don't blame President Hinckley because the question wasn't specific enough.
:P<_<:unsure: So you think Pres. Hinckley squeaked through on that one right?

If you read the initial post, there have been several issues opened in this thread. One of them is that the church has been lying through its statements and curriculum. I'm putting forth the position that they've said all that they need to on the subject.

There have been official statements brought out in this thread in an attempt to show the church isn't hiding it's polygamist history, and in an attempt to distance the thread from the fact that Pres. Hinckley mispoke. In any event, they are still not addressing the OP

. . . so it goes.

Link to comment

Orpheus

I agree that liar is a harsh word, and actually, I'm not comfortable with that which is why I quanitifed it later saying I wish President Hnckley had been more forthcoming rather than giving, IMO, part of the answer, the safe answer. I am trying to have a civil discussion. It is the personalities like yourself who cannot entertain the fact that our Prophet could be wrong, even though numerous times in the past prophets have been proven to be wrong. Unfortunately, all is not black or white. I do believe I have the right to question things which I find not in harmony with the way I have been taught. But you rub me the wrong way when you tell me to knock it off. How would you treat an investigator with the same concerns?????? Why are my questions any less important and why don't they deserve kind replies rather than your namecalling???

Free Agent

Another moderator slap-down will earn you a suspension. Nobody is telling you you can't talk about what you want to. You are being told --for the last time-- that you will do it in a respectful way if you want to stay on our board.

Link to comment

My original comment still stands. He correctly answered the question asked. I'm amazed at how far some people are willing to twist and turn to find a misstatement.

Larry King:. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started when it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Yes, I really had to twist and turn to find that misstatement.
Link to comment

Which may be true, but it isn't what he was asked. Here is the question for you again: "When it started, when it allowed it? Any answer to a question of "started" and "allowed", that says "when the church moved out west, is at best, "putting a spin on it" at worst, dishonest. He elaborates "the figure I have is 2 to 5% of the membership practiced it." Which was it? It was either "open to the general body of the church", or the few elite who were allowed to practice it.

:P<_<:unsure: So you think Pres. Hinckley squeaked through on that one right?

There have been official statements brought out in this thread in an attempt to show the church isn't hiding it's polygamist history, and in an attempt to distance the thread from the fact that Pres. Hinckley mispoke. In any event, they are still not addressing the OP . . . so it goes.

The church constantly spins this one. The fact that polygamy was once taught as essential to a mans exaltation is forgotten, as is the commandment to raise up seed unto me, in favour of, in order to help struggling single women etc.

However, I would maintain that on this occasion the spin is within bounds I would set as honest, because whilst a select few practised it prior to the move west,polygamy was not put before the high council till 1843 and later still to the general church membership. Since "the church" is the entire body and not just the inner circle, it was a legitimate answer.

Lets get off that one and focus on the fact that the church does spin misleading statements generally to soften the truth of polygamy to the general public, who become members who then sometimes discover the full facts and feel lied to, for the truth IS different to the spin.

Link to comment

The church is guided by Christ. If you think HE is doing a bad job, you should take it to Him. Don't you think?

If you were going to a high school to complain about something that was being done there, would you go to the students? Teachers? OR principal?

I find threads like this highly suspect when the opening post acts like it is all just about discussion for interest sake.

We all know why the post started came here and posted this thread--- do we not?

Link to comment

Hammer,

I know why I started the thread. I don't know what you are implying. I happened to be doing research and studying lastnight and came across the Larry King interview with President Hinckley. I remember watching that interview and because at the time in 1998 I had no reason to doubt his words on polygamy I never researched it further. Now, in the last couple of years I am finding out numerous things that exist in our church that I find, at the very least, unsettling. Polygamy just happens to be one of those items. Because these things aren't the kinds of things that are regularly brought up in Church lessons, which most people on this board concur that you have other avenues to learn these things, (ie Institute and BYU, which not every member has the opportunity for that, BTW), I honestly like this forum of being able to ask the tough questions that I really couldn't ask at church, unless I were running to by bishop on a weekly basis.

So, back to why I started the thread - it really jumped out at me, reading the words in the interview about how polygamy started when we went west. I guess when we really dissect it, west has different interpretations to different people and so President Hinckley was absolutely correct in his reply if you interpret it the way he intended. I happened to interpret it differently and did not realize that would stir up such a tempest in a teapot.

Free Agent

I guess I am in a generous mood today for giving this one more try. Your interpretation is not the problem your calling people liars is the problem. But nice try. ~ Mod

Link to comment

Hammer,

I know why I started the thread. I don't know what you are implying. I happened to be doing research and studying lastnight and came across the Larry King interview with President Hinckley. I remember watching that interview and because at the time in 1998 I had no reason to doubt his words on polygamy I never researched it further. Now, in the last couple of years I am finding out numerous things that exist in our church that I find, at the very least, unsettling. Polygamy just happens to be one of those items. Because these things aren't the kinds of things that are regularly brought up in Church lessons, which most people on this board concur that you have other avenues to learn these things, (ie Institute and BYU, which not every member has the opportunity for that, BTW), I honestly like this forum of being able to ask the tough questions that I really couldn't ask at church, unless I were running to by bishop on a weekly basis.

So, back to why I started the thread - it really jumped out at me, reading the words in the interview about how polygamy started when we went west. I guess when we really dissect it, west has different interpretations to different people and so President Hinckley was absolutely correct in his reply if you interpret it the way he intended. I happened to interpret it differently and did not realize that would stir up such a tempest in a teapot.

Free Agent

Our point of views also marks where we are standing. I chose to stand in Holy places. President Hinckley alone can tell you what he meant by his statement in reguards to church history. I would believe he meant that it was only openly practiced out west where they were not surrounded by other churches and societies that would fight them.

It only makes sense that polygamy as the world knows it, was practiced openly. As far as the sacred practice before going west, it was a spiritual practice. Not on a worldly level until after JS was dead and the Saints left and went west.

I don't believe, after reading your posts, that you came here just to discuss this issue for your interest sake. Sorry.

Link to comment
Yes, I really had to twist and turn to find that misstatement.

I agree. You have emphasized the wrong word. Try looking at the word "allowed." Try listening to the audio. The word "allowed" was clearly meant as a correction (substitution) for the misspoken word "started." In his answer President Hinkley made it clearly that he was answering the question of when plural marriage was "allowed" or "permitted," not when it was first practiced ("started"). From the context he clearly refers to when polygyny was announced and permitted to the membership at large, after Pratt's 1852 discourse. Even then it was restricted in the sense that one had to get permission from the proper priesthood authority before entering into a plural marriage.

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...