When Pondering Polygamy.... Do You Feel

[Theophilus07]

I am astounded that critics spend so much time listening to our living prophets, whom they do not accept as prophets and with whom they continually find fault. Someone needs to get a life.

I am astounded that apologists spend so much time claiming that only critics twist the truth when the LDS Church President himself goes on live national TV and twists the truth by trying to claim that the LDS doctrine of Eternal Progression in which man progress to become a god is not something taught -- though current official LDS manuals do indeed teach this -- and also on live national TV promulgates the untruth that polygamy was started when the Saints moved west. His words have been characterized apologetically in this very thread as merely entirely understandable "PR spin." Evidently when critics present untruths it is dispicable, but when apologists deliberately present untruths it is merely understandable "PR spin." Deborah, if you're going to claim a higher morality, you're going to have to learn to actually live the higher morality.

It actually reminds me of how the Scribes and Pharisees were constantly trying to trip up Jesus by twisting words. His words to them when they tried to say they were Abraham's childeren were "If ye were Abrahamâ??s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. " (John 8:39-40).

Then why do so to try to tap-dance around GBH's clear PR spin? I think GBH should have stated the truth to begin with and then the apologists here wouldn't have had to try to claim live shows were edited or to present the weak defense that GBH's words were just understandable PR spin. As my mother always told me it's so much easier just to be completely honest from the get-go. Then you don't have to try to tap dance around the falsehoods later.

Theophilus07

[truthseeker2]

And that really is the hang-up. However, surely you realize how much sex has been perverted so that it has become something lustful and selfish. I do not believe sex per se was the primary motivation under the OT practice of polygamy nor under the early church's practice, though that is not to say some may have abused the principle. Rather the primary motivation was to procreate and bring forth seed. You can read your own lustful judgments into it but that doesn't make it so.

David in the OT had concubines as well. Concubines are gloried whores for the King. I'm not so sure how righteous the old kings in Israel are either. If we're using the OT to justify polygamy, then we're in big trouble. The Book of Mormon speaks against having more then one wife, and yes I've heard numerous arguments suggesting that Jacob's comments are taken out of context, but NAME ME ONE Book of Mormon prophet, King or other who had multiple wives? And don't accuse me of not understanding the Book of Mormon, I've read it over 20 times in my lifetime already.

[ed2276]

David in the OT had concubines as well. Concubines are gloried whores for the King. I'm not so sure how righteous the old kings in Israel are either. If we're using the OT to justify polygamy, then we're in big trouble. The Book of Mormon speaks against having more then one wife, and yes I've heard numerous arguments suggesting that Jacob's comments are taken out of context, but NAME ME ONE Book of Mormon prophet, King or other who had multiple wives? And don't accuse me of not understanding the Book of Mormon, I've read it over 20 times in my lifetime already.

We are not in big trouble for using the OT to show that plural marriage was approved of by the Lord in the OT. And the OT is not the only source of justification for the practice.

You don't understand the BoM. The fact that the Lord disallowed plural marriage to the Nephites is not evidence that He disapproved of or forbade its practice by the OT kings and patriarchs. In fact , the Lord allows for the possibility of the Nephite practice of plural marriage should He see fit to command its practice among them.

The Lord commanded plural marriage by the OT kings and patriarchs. The Lord punished David and Solomon for their actions outside the Lord's authorized parameters for its practice. The Lord forbade the Nephites to practice plural marriage , but left open the possibilty for its lawful practice should He command it. The Lord commanded the practice of plural marriage in the early history of the LDS church and so it was lawful. The Lord forbade its practice later on so now it is unlawful.

It's really quite simple : When the Lord commands the practice of plural marriage it is lawful and when He forbids its practice it is unlawful.

[erichard]

...The church has taught that those who want to go to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom will need to participate in the glorious principle of the new and everlasting covenant of the plurality of wives. That's why my ancestors entered into it and their journals speak of this. They considered this principle as important to enter into and abide by as any faithful, believing LDS member today considers any covenant they make in the temple. The principle of the plurality of wives was an important one to them in the Restoration of all things. And yes they feared that one day the wicked people of the world would try to take away this plain and precious Restoration principle from them. All the spin in the world can't change this history of theirs.

...

I grew up off and on in Southern Utah, the "burnt over" district of fundamentalist polygamy. Several of my LDS ancestors were polygamists. One, George A Smith, a cousin of Joseph, had seven wives, and I come through the 6th one. I read my grandmother Zora's book about him. I have read many times the early LDS quotes saying what you say. So, I have considered the clamor for and against polygamy all my life.

As an active member of the LDS church and returned missionary, I was certainly willing to accept that the practice was now done away with. My own personal efforts in prayer and study and research, however, led me to a spiritual witness that in some cases it cannot be done away with.

In other words, by the Spirit I am certain that no one can say they are going to live the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage as taught in D&C 132, and then say they absolutely will never live plural marriage. They just contradicted themselves. D&C 132:44, at least, clearly requires plural marriage if necessary when a woman under the covenant loses her husband to apostasy.

I do not accept the Lorin Wooley or LeBaron claims to special authority, nor do I accept their versions of plural marriage. But I remain certain that the marriage laws of God require it in certain cases, and the LDS church is incorrect in teaching otherwise.

Did not the Lord warn the Saints that He would try them in ALL THINGS? Why would it be so strange that he would try them with leaders seeking the glory of the world, and not the green pastures of His word?

D&C 136

31 My people must be tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them, even the glory of Zion; and he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom.

I think 2BC 24 is very clear in showing why this principle cannot be completely abandoned by anyone trying to live all His laws. Try considering the spirit and logic of this 1975 revelation, not prejudging it because of its source:

14 For I have commanded you in the revelations I

gave unto you through My servant Joseph Smith

that if a husband committeth adultery after he and

his wife have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of

Promise and he lieth with someone who hath been

sealed to another, he hath lost his Priesthood and

the covenants he has entered into are null and

void, for he hath broken them.

15 And the woman who is innocent and her

children are therefore free, for the law is no more

binding on them.

16 And have I not commanded thee to take her

and give her unto him that hath not committed

adultery but hath been faithful? For he shall be

made ruler over many. [=D&C 132:44]

17 But ye have not done this, but have set aside

this commandment like as if it never was, for ye

understand not the sin ye cause to be committed by

not keeping this commandment, for if she stay

with her husband he shall raise up children like

unto himself, and he hath no Priesthood for he

hath lost it through sin; and if ye cut not this man

off from My church ye cause My church to be

polluted.

18 And if ye give not this woman unto a righteous

man ye cause her to go away and seek after

another to sustain her, and thus she is led unto

temptation and strange flesh.

19 And ye cause her children to grow up like unto

the children of the world.

20 And because ye keep not this commandment ye

cause the innocent to sin, and My whole church

has become polluted with false tradition and

beliefs concerning this thing.

21 Consider also the welfare program ye have set

up to take care of the poor among you, which ye

pride yourself in and set before the world as a

light, and which ye boast of your righteousness in:

it is before My face an abomination, for it abaseth

the poor and exalteth the rich.

22 For ye claim ye make it so that the rich

participate in it to the same extent as the poor. But

ye know that this is not true, for ye know that the

poor participate in it to a far greater extent than

the rich, for the poor help the poor, and thus it has

been from the beginning.

23 But I say unto thee, if the rich and all those to

whom I have given an abundance of wealth do not

humble themselves before Me and consecrate all

their surplus property unto Me from this time

forth they shall lose even that which they have, for

I shall take it from them saith the Lord of Hosts.

24 For they muffle the walls of their mansions that

they hear not the sorrow of the widow and orphan,

for Mine anger is kindled in a double portion for

the sins of this people pertaining to the laws of

marriage.

25 For they heed not the commandments given to

them in My holy book and in the Doctrine and

Covenants, for they fear men and have feared men

from the beginning.

26 Because of their disobedience in this matter

they have caused generations of My most precious

spirits to be brought up in sin, for the widow and

the orphan have had to seek to strangers for their

sustenance which has brought them into the

depths of sin, wherein the sin lieth not at their

door, but at the door of the cowards at the head of

My church who fight not the laws of this land that

forbid these things.

27 For they seeketh after the glory of the world

and seek to gain prestige in politics, and delight in

the honor and glory of their position.

28 Behold, if they repent not I shall break down

their defenses of self-righteousness, and scatter

their armies of hypocrisy, and shall expose before

this people their cowardice.

29 And if they repent not in sackcloth and ashes,

saith the LORD, I shall raise up men in their places

that shall do My bidding, and the evil shall know

the wrath of Mine anger, for I shall not allow My

name to be mocked before the nations of the earth

any longer; and I shall cleanse Mine house with

the whip of My tongue.

30 But ye cry out, "We look after our Poor!" I say

unto you, ye are whited sepulchers full of dead

men's bones.

31 Do ye take your brother's widow to wife to

raise up a righteous generation unto him? I say

unto you that ye do not! Ye do not this, not because

the law forbids you to do it, for I have caused that

the laws of this land in these matters are of none

effect and neither can they bind thee, but ye keep

not these commandments because ye want to

appear before the world as righteous and

honorable men.

32 And ye cast them from you, those that would

seek to keep this law, for that which was once

sacred in My house has become as dung.

33 O how foolish are the laws of men that cause

the innocent to sin, and how wise are the laws of

God that bring salvation and exaltation to the poor

and innocent.

34 Among Mine ancient covenant people I caused

that those who would not keep this law should be

cast from the congregation that they could no

longer stand in the place of honor, neither could

they hold office in My Priesthood if they kept not

this law.

35 I say unto you, this law I revoke not and never

can revoke, for I am a just God and honor the

widow and the orphan and the destitute.

36 For ye cause these widows of Mine honorable

servants to seek after strangers for the continuance

of their posterity, and My Spirit grieveth much

over this thing.

37 And I say unto thee, if ye repent not

immediately concerning this matter, ye shall

receive the same cursing as Cain, for ye commit

the same sin as he, for he cut off the posterity of

Abel his brother, and do ye not do the same thing?

38 I who am a just God cannot allow this sin to go

unpunished.

39 Repent every one of you, even now, from the

greatest to the least, for not one of you shall be

found guiltless at the last day if ye repent not.

40 Your minds have become darkened like unto

those of old, for ye heed not My commandments

nor listen to My servants, but ye set yourselves up

leaders who placate the senses, that seek not the

truth in righteousness, nor My will, but seek only

after the praises of the people and the world.

...

[truthseeker2]

We are not in big trouble for using the OT to show that plural marriage was approved of by the Lord in the OT. And the OT is not the only source of justification for the practice.

You don't understand the BoM. The fact that the Lord disallowed plural marriage to the Nephites is not evidence that He disapproved of or forbade its practice by the OT kings and patriarchs. In fact , the Lord allows for the possibility of the Nephite practice of plural marriage should He see fit to command its practice among them.

The Lord commanded plural marriage by the OT kings and patriarchs. The Lord punished David and Solomon for their actions outside the Lord's authorized parameters for its practice. The Lord forbade the Nephites to practice plural marriage , but left open the possibilty for its lawful practice should He command it. The Lord commanded the practice of plural marriage in the early history of the LDS church and so it was lawful. The Lord forbade its practice later on so now it is unlawful.

It's really quite simple : When the Lord commands the practice of plural marriage it is lawful and when He forbids its practice it is unlawful.

That's a pretty easy cop out regarding the Book of Mormon. So what your saying is that the Book we believe to be the most "correct" in terms of translation is in fact about peoples who did not live the FULL law of God. But on the other hand, David and Solomon were perfectly in their right to live the law because God commanded it. But what doesn't make sense is if the plates of Laban were in fact the history of their people, which would include Solomon and David, then why was there in fact no discourse as to why that principal was never again adopted.

Finally in 3rd Nephi, after the Savior comes to the new world, there is ZERO reference to polygamy or the Everlasting Covenant of marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but were not those people who lived directly after the Saviors coming not in fact some of the most righteous people to walk the earth?

I think there is this tendency in our religion to justify those principals that we feel are correct and use the Bible to validate those beliefs, but when they don't, then we find every excuse to make those same sources invalid.

Finally, I have a book that refers to JS's journals. It's interesting to read that Joseph and other's in Navhou were very much publicly against "spiritual wives", but we're secretly practicing the principal behind the scenes.

[Machtyn]

Theophilus:

I am passionate about defending my faith. I am apathetic to the practice of polygamy. I don't really care that it was practiced when it was. I just know that when commanded by God through His living prophet, whether it was Samual (of the OT) or Joseph Smith, it is righteous for that time. It is not now, therefore I don't care about polygamy.

I was defending Pres. Hinckley's answer as being only a half answer to a two-part question: When was it started and when was it allowed. It was a horribly worded question. Pres. Hinckley answered the second part and Larry King either didn't allow a complete answer or Pres. Hinckley didn't feel the need to elaborate. As I recall from my memory, that section of questioning came at a fairly rapid pace... and for an 80 or 90 year old man to be that on his toes is impressive. (I don't normally watch LKL, but I watched that particular episode.)

Anyway. I am passionate about being correct. So, I went back and appropriately edited my comments, but instead of deleting everything, I left it in to show that what I say is needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Just as anything you say should also be taken for what it is worth, your opinion. Since we are both looking at the same statement and deriving completely different context from it.

[kawikadave]

"In the early days of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, an unusual condition prevailed. More women than men joined the church...There were not enough men to go around...The alternative was plural marriage."

Berrett, William E., The Restored Church, Deseret Book, 1956, p.250. As you may know, Deseret Book is 100% owned by the LDS Church.

This would be a cute reference and conclusion except for these major problems:

1. The premise that anything Deseret Books publishes is approved church doctrine is laughable. Does that also mean that the latest CD from John Bytheway is also approved church doctrine? (no offense meant toward Br. Bytheway, by the way).

2. Assuming you have the book where you pulled your quote, you could read on the title page that "This work is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book Company."

That's pretty clear isn't it?

So again I ask you to provide the materials which the church uses to promote this theory of Utah widows being the genesis of polygamy? Surely you can look through the teaching manuals of the church to find this doctrine.

You've provided some anecdotal evidence and I could provide some contradictory anecdotal evidence. However, neither of our stories is worth much.

Again, I admit that some might have heard this theory and have repeated it. If I were to hear a statement like that in sunday school or quorum meetings I would contest and attempt to correct it.

[truthseeker2]

This would be a cute reference and conclusion except for these major problems:

1. The premise that anything Deseret Books publishes is approved church doctrine is laughable. Does that also mean that the latest CD from John Bytheway is also approved church doctrine? (no offense meant toward Br. Bytheway, by the way).

2. Assuming you have the book where you pulled your quote, you could read on the title page that "This work is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book Company."

That's pretty clear isn't it?

So again I ask you to provide the materials which the church uses to promote this theory of Utah widows being the genesis of polygamy? Surely you can look through the teaching manuals of the church to find this doctrine.

You've provided some anecdotal evidence and I could provide some contradictory anecdotal evidence. However, neither of our stories is worth much.

Again, I admit that some might have heard this theory and have repeated it. If I were to hear a statement like that in sunday school or quorum meetings I would contest and attempt to correct it.

Dave, I think you are correct as in terms of the official position of those in positions to make such statements at the church level. But as most of us grow up in the LDS church, we're often taught the "widow" version of polygamy by our teachers, leaders, seminary teachers, etc. I know because I was in the class when seminary teachers at my high school did in fact point out that Brigham and others only married for spiritual reasons, or because there were not enough men. Never was it mentioned that Joseph had wives, nor was the reason pointed that procreation was in fact necessary to build the "base" as someone else pointed out earlier. I guess teaching "minds full of mush" that concept may not have been understood in it's intent, but the problem is it's glossed over by the general membership, and more times then naught it's simply not understood at all by most members.

I'm glad their are members like yourself who correct the false statements made by good intending members, but the problem is it's fairly common through out the church.

[kawikadave]

Dave, I think you are correct as in terms of the official position of those in positions to make such statements at the church level. But as most of us grow up in the LDS church, we're often taught the "widow" version of polygamy by our teachers, leaders, seminary teachers, etc. I know because I was in the class when seminary teachers at my high school did in fact point out that Brigham and others only married for spiritual reasons, or because there were not enough men. Never was it mentioned that Joseph had wives, nor was the reason pointed that procreation was in fact necessary to build the "base" as someone else pointed out earlier. I guess teaching "minds full of mush" that concept may not have been understood in it's intent, but the problem is it's glossed over by the general membership, and more times then naught it's simply not understood at all by most members.

I'm glad their are members like yourself who correct the false statements made by good intending members, but the problem is it's fairly common through out the church.

I think that's fair.

My point has been to show that the teaching materials of the church do show when polygamy began (with Joseph Smith) and describe its goals (raising up a righteous seed). Teachers can ignore that material and teach from memory, rumor, and hearsay, but they've been asked to use the materials in order to eliminate these kinds of errors.

Correction takes time.

[No Touch]

Your current Prophet teaches otherwise. And on live national television.

Which is correct, your church history books or your Prophet? My study indicates the history books are correct that it was started by Joseph Smith and that your Prophet is mistaken. But I can understand how many LDS mistakenly believe the "widows" myth when your Prophet promulgates misinformation like this.

Theophilus07

You realize that to even get to this point I have to accept Joseph Smith as a prophet despite the stumbling block that he told the outside world that the Saints weren't practicing Polygamy, when in fact they practiced it in secret. Maybe you'll think I'm a brainwashed sheep (but bear in mind I joined the church in my 20s), but I don't feel the prophets or anyone has an obligation to be open & honest with a hostile world, any more than Peter was condemned for denying Christ 3 times.

But besides that, the Prophet is not a scholar, historian, or concerned with being such to my knowledge. I don't see why one would hold that against him.

[Deborah]

Polygamy is inherently unfair to women. Why? Multiple reasons, but here's one: The husband gets to share all of his wives resources, but each wife has only a fraction of the husband's resources, especially if he dies. Marriage ought to be about equality, but polygamy is all about inequality.

How about the wives get to share each others resources as well. One who has a talent for medicine goes to medical school while one who has a talent and enjoyment of cooking cooks, and one who has a gift for dealing with children teaches.

[Deborah]

I think GBH should have stated the truth to begin with

And what is the truth? Truth according to whom? Being on a show in front of a national audience is not the venue to explain doctrine. What Pres. Hinckley said was a basic truth and to those who know history the intent of what he said is understood. Indeed the saints did practice polygamy as they went west. To get into any more detail would have involved more time than Larry's show allotted and an explanation of D&C 132 as well as a history lesson of the OT practice. What was said was appropriate for the venue. This was not the time and place to explain the very complicated issue of plural marriage. "And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words." (Mark 12:13). To nitpick every word and pause of the dead and living prophets is Pharisaic just as it was in Jesus' day. To call our current beloved prophet a liar based on your interpretation of what was said is offensive.

[ed2276]

That's a pretty easy cop out regarding the Book of Mormon. So what your saying is that the Book we believe to be the most "correct" in terms of translation is in fact about peoples who did not live the FULL law of God. But on the other hand, David and Solomon were perfectly in their right to live the law because God commanded it. But what doesn't make sense is if the plates of Laban were in fact the history of their people, which would include Solomon and David, then why was there in fact no discourse as to why that principal was never again adopted.

How is it a cop out? The Lord specifically tells the Nephites that His commandment to them is that they will not practice plural marriage. The Lord goes on to tell them :

Jacob 2:

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

That's no cop out at all. It is an express statement , "You are not to practice plural marriage unless I command it".

There was an explanation as to why the Lord would not allow the practice among the Nephites. He didn't want them to fall into the same error in its practice as David and Solomon did.

Jacob 2 : 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none

Finally in 3rd Nephi, after the Savior comes to the new world, there is ZERO reference to polygamy or the Everlasting Covenant of marriage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but were not those people who lived directly after the Saviors coming not in fact some of the most righteous people to walk the earth?

I believe they were among the most righteous on earth , along with the disciples in Jerusalem , who though they lived the perfect law of consecration did not , as far as we know , practice plural marriage either. I think it really does come down to just a matter of what the Lord commands and requires of His people at a given point in time.

I think there is this tendency in our religion to justify those principals that we feel are correct and use the Bible to validate those beliefs, but when they don't, then we find every excuse to make those same sources invalid.

I don't know that we make them invalid as much as we say that we are not limited to the biblical text for doctrine ; so , when there is not a specific passage that supports our doctrine we don't invalidate it , we simply say that we have been given further revelation on the matter independent of the passage. Do you have an example of our invalidating a particular passage so I can see what you mean exactly?

Finally, I have a book that refers to JS's journals. It's interesting to read that Joseph and other's in Navhou were very much publicly against "spiritual wives", but we're secretly practicing the principal behind the scenes.

Yeah. I don't know much about the issue personally.

[Deborah]

I cannot advise you about your personal beliefs, but my personal integrity prevents me from following the precepts of a Church which has such a thoroughly documented track record of deliberate and chronic falsehoods and public deception.

The integrity that allows you to slander living and dead prophets and the faith of others? The integrity that allows you to take things out of the context of the times and place?

I have been a member of this church for over 40 years and have studied its doctrine and history. I do not read it's history as you do. The so-called "deliberate and chronic falsehoods and public deception" are in the minds of those who do not comprehend the context of the doctrine or history and who find evil where it does not exist.

[Irondukesteve]

I feel somewhat sorrowful.

I personally feel that in Joseph's quest to restore all things biblical he restored polygamy which I personally dont feel was or is a necessary part of the gospel plan. If the church were to reinstate it, I would not practice it, partly because the law of the country prohibits it, but mainly because the idea of having another wife does not inspire me spiritually or emotionally. If other men want to do it...they are free to...but as for me I find the idea repulsive, as my wife means everything to me. If there were intense pressure from my church leaders to practice I would not, but I would still remain in the church. If like some early brethren, I was excommunicated for not obeying the prophet when asked to be polygamous I would keep coming to church even though I had lost my place in the church as long as Christ is central and emmintenly emphasized.

Now on the other hand...if the prophet approached me and asked to have my wife as one of his polyandrous wives...I would definitely not agree to that.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I do not feel that polygamy is a divine principle. I disagree with the early mormon doctrine that one had to be polygamous to enter the highest degree of the CK. I feel that Joseph was not inspired when teaching polygamy(atleast subjectively)...I empathize with Emma.

[Deborah]

I guess what I am trying to say is that I do not feel that polygamy is a divine principle. I disagree with the early mormon doctrine that one had to be polygamous to enter the highest degree of the CK. I feel that Joseph was not inspired when teaching polygamy(atleast subjectively)...I empathize with Emma.

I guess it's a matter of perspective. I'm at an age where the sex is not a major issue and where companionship is more important, and that companionship includes women as well. Although I felt this even when I was younger. I do think though, contrary to what many opine here, that the righteous practice of polygamy is harder for the man than the women. But that is my perspective, and I'm a woman.

The requirement of polygamy to enter the highest degree of the CK was not doctrine. What was necessary was the restoration of all things and the obedience to what is a part of the Celestial Law. Plural marriage is still practiced today as men can be sealed to more than one woman. I think the fact this is a Celestial Law speaks for why it is so difficult to live; most of us are not yet Celestial people. I also think it indicates that the concept of plural marriage in eternity is based on pure charity and that we have difficulty with it in this life because we are in such a selfish world and subject to petty jealousies and insecurities.

[Parser]

////

[All-Seeing Eye]

Right now I'm doing research on Mormon fundamentalism. It has been eye-opening to read quotes from Heber J. Grant about the evils of polygamy ("new" polygamy), while he himself was a polygamist. Although I've not read the records from the Smoot hearings, I think that JFS probably struggled to both live and decry polygamy.

Today, many of us are the descendant's of Mormon polygamists. Regardless of that fact, when you think of pre-1904 polygamy, are you disgusted? enthralled? intrigued? ashamed?

For me, I'm somewhat fascinated by the whole idea. It's hard to imagine men and women willingly entering polygamy. In a way, I'm proud of the great amounts of faith that my forebearers had in the principle, but I'm also somewhat horrified by some of the hardships a polygamist life exacted upon plural wives (and sometimes husbands...especially when they were on the lam).

What are your reaction to the practice?

Polygamy is great. I wish it were still around. I would enjoy having sex with multiple women.

[No Touch]

Polygamy is great. I wish it were still around. I would enjoy having sex with multiple women.

You seem to forget the part about being married.

[All-Seeing Eye]

You seem to forget the part about being married.

Huh? I don't know what you and your wife do, but I and my wife, uh, "enjoy each other's company" quite a bit.

[No Touch]

Huh? I don't know what you and your wife do, but I and my wife, uh, "enjoy each other's company" quite a bit.

bleh...by saying "I would love to have sex with many women" over simplifies what polygamy, as practiced by the church was/is, and I think it plays into the notion put forth by Anti's that it is the only motivation for the practice or that is what the principle is. My marriage as a lot more than that, and polygamy is worthless if it isn't a real marriage, with the same emotional and spiritual ties as any monogamous marriage.

[All-Seeing Eye]

bleh...by saying "I would love to have sex with many women" over simplifies what polygamy, as practiced by the church was/is, and I think it plays into the notion put forth by Anti's that it is the only motivation for the practice or that is what the principle is. My marriage as a lot more than that, and polygamy is worthless if it isn't a real marriage, with the same emotional and spiritual ties as any monogamous marriage.

I disagree. When he was old, King David had a young woman sleep with him just to keep him warm at night.

[truthseeker2]

I feel somewhat sorrowful.

I personally feel that in Joseph's quest to restore all things biblical he restored polygamy which I personally dont feel was or is a necessary part of the gospel plan. If the church were to reinstate it, I would not practice it, partly because the law of the country prohibits it, but mainly because the idea of having another wife does not inspire me spiritually or emotionally. If other men want to do it...they are free to...but as for me I find the idea repulsive, as my wife means everything to me. If there were intense pressure from my church leaders to practice I would not, but I would still remain in the church. If like some early brethren, I was excommunicated for not obeying the prophet when asked to be polygamous I would keep coming to church even though I had lost my place in the church as long as Christ is central and emmintenly emphasized.

Now on the other hand...if the prophet approached me and asked to have my wife as one of his polyandrous wives...I would definitely not agree to that.

I guess what I am trying to say is that I do not feel that polygamy is a divine principle. I disagree with the early mormon doctrine that one had to be polygamous to enter the highest degree of the CK. I feel that Joseph was not inspired when teaching polygamy(atleast subjectively)...I empathize with Emma.

You state what I believe almost word for word. Thank you for writing it so clearly and from you heart. I think it's really easy for those whom have never had to face that choice to say they would, but it's an entirely other matter to actually have to do so.

Big question, how many of you on this board would willingly give up your wife for eternity to the prophet just because he asked you to? It's an honest question that none of us can answer because we don't have to at the present time. But there were polyandras wives whom were married to Joseph Smith, and their husbands in most cases gave up being mates for eternity.

Does anyone really believe that God would ask these brothers to do so? I really find it difficult to believe so.

[No Touch]

I disagree. When he was old, King David had a young woman sleep with him just to keep him warm at night.

We can agree to disagree then. But if Polygamy should ever be reinstated, I doubt it will be what you are depicting.

[No Touch]

Big question, how many of you on this board would willingly give up your wife for eternity to the prophet just because he asked you to? It's an honest question that none of us can answer because we don't have to at the present time. But there were polyandras wives whom were married to Joseph Smith, and their husbands in most cases gave up being mates for eternity.

Does anyone really believe that God would ask these brothers to do so? I really find it difficult to believe so.

Not every sealing was a marriage. Just because we today only seal spouses and children to parents doesn't mean that was the understanding in the early days of the Church. And considering that Joseph Smith fathered no children in any polyandrous marriages (or with anyone other than Emma), I don't think you can make a solid claim that any sealing to a married woman was considered a marriage (not simply a sealing), and that you can consider any of these "polyandrous marriages" as actually being that.