Jon63 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Unfortunately, history is rarely straightforward, especially something as controversial as Mormonism. I would also suggest that Google and message boards are not the best places for Mormon history when it comes to accuracy.True, but they are a tad more accurate than the history told by official LDS Church sources...
ELF1024 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 True, but they are a tad more accurate than the history told by official LDS Church sources... Yeah... because going to a bricklayer to buy diamonds makes SOOO much sense.
High Priest Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 The rod? What's this rod?The "rod" was a physical object that Oliver Cowdery used in the early days of the church to receive revelation from God. Some say it was a staff, like Aaron had, others say it was a Y-shaped stick like a divining rod. Research 'Rod of Aaron' and 'gift of Aaron' to know more.The following is quoted in its entirety from the Gospel Doctrine study Guide:DC 8:6 the gift of AaronJoseph Fielding SmithThere was another gift bestowed upon Oliver Cowdery, and that was the gift of Aaron. Like Aaron with his rod in his hand going before Moses as a spokesman, so Oliver Cowdery was to go before Joseph Smith. Whatever he should ask the Lord by power of this gift should be granted if asked in faith and in wisdom. Oliver was blessed with the great honor of holding the keys of this dispensation with Joseph Smith, and like Aaron [Ex. 4:10-17], did become a spokesman on numerous occasions. It was Oliver who delivered the first public discourse in this dispensation.(Roy W. Doxey, comp., Latter-day prophets and the Doctrine and Covenants [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1978], 1: 82.)DC 8:8 you shall hold it in your handsHow could Oliver Cowdery hold the gift of Aaron in his hands? A review of the first edition of the Book of Commandments makes this verse more clear. In the original, the preceding verses read as follows:"Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God." (Melvin J. Petersen, "Preparing Early Revelations for Publication," Ensign, Feb. 1985, 20)Oliver held this rod (symbolic of the rod of Aaron and the gift of Aaron) in his hands. Oliver was in possession of a rod-an instrument for divining the Lord's will which worked much like a Urim and Thummim. The possession of such a rod explains why the next verse says, 'you shall hold it in your hands.and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands.'"It seems evident that the Lord entrusted Oliver with a sacred instrument through which he could translate by the Spirit of revelation. Having received instructions on the use of the sacred instrument which he possessed, Oliver Cowdery sought to translate from the Plates of Mormon, probably through the instrument which had been entrusted into his care. But he failed." (Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1967], 6.)Reference:http://www.gospeldoc...ants/DC%208.htm
beth Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Beth, the more research you do the more inconsistencies you will find. For instance. Joseph Smith practiced Polygamy, he even married women who were already married with living husbands. Now, is that correct Doctrine in the eyes of God or can Mormon prophets lead the Church astray? The Church publically banned Polygamy in 1890 but the Church's leaders still carried on the practice in secret. The Church's current stance is that Polygamy is an offence punishable by excommunication regardless of whether or not it is against the law. But the Church also teaches that Polygamy will be practiced in the highest degree of Heaven. I suggest you keep researching but don't listen to opinion and views, find the actual facts and make your own mind up about them.OK, on polygamy, which I've heard a lot about - I can see maybe that this could be OK if everyone agreed to it. I mean they did practice it in the Bible long ago sometimes and some people still practice it today. It's not something I would ever consider but OK. But I do have some questions on polygamy:Were the women OK with it? I would naturally think most women would not like this.Why do some 'fringe' Mormons still practice it today and why aren't they jailed for it? Isn't it illegal? Was it legal back in the 1800s?Did Joseph really marry women that were already married? Were their husbands already deceased or something?
beth Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Unfortunately, history is rarely straightforward, especially something as controversial as Mormonism.
Jon63 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 OK, on polygamy, which I've heard a lot about - I can see maybe that this could be OK if everyone agreed to it. I mean they did practice it in the Bible long ago sometimes and some people still practice it today. It's not something I would ever consider but OK. But I do have some questions on polygamy:Were the women OK with it? I would naturally think most women would not like this.Why do some 'fringe' Mormons still practice it today and why aren't they jailed for it? Isn't it illegal? Was it legal back in the 1800s?Did Joseph really marry women that were already married? Were their husbands already deceased or something?I have a personal view and an opinion based on my own research and the facts as I see them.Joseph did marry women who already had living husbands - from memory I think the number is 11 but it may be more or less than that.You can check out Jospehs polygamous sealings on FamilySearch - the Churches own geneological website showing who married who.Hard to tell if women were okay with it. There are journal entries and letters from the time that indicate that Joseph practiced Polygamy in secret and also that Emma (his original wife) was less than impressed when she found out. The husbands certainly weren't - I think this type of behaviour led to Joseph being tarred and feathered.Today where Polygamy is illegal it causes problems, there are a number of active cases reported about in current news stories.As I said, this is my personal view, opinion based on my own study. I may not be 100% correct so I suggest you study it independantely using bona fide sources such as the LDS online sources and proper historical studies.Personally I agreed with President Hinkley when he publically stated that it wasn't Doctrinal.
High Priest Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 cdowis said "He was sealed to them. There is absolutely no evidence that he had an intimate relationship with the women who were already married. There is no evidence that he fathered any children outside his marriage with Emma."It seems that some FAIR apologists believe that Joseph may have had sex with the women that he married that had other husbands:From the FAIR apologist web site discussing Joseph's marriages to women already married to other living men: "This is not to argue, I hasten to add, that such marriages must not or could not involve sexuality. I believe they were legitimate marriages, and as such could easily accommodate righteous marital relations."http://en.fairmormon...pter#Conclusion
High Priest Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 Why do some 'fringe' Mormons still practice it today and why aren't they jailed for it? Isn't it illegal? Was it legal back in the 1800s?I'm not sure exactly why the law today doesn't go after all polygamists as it is illegal in the USA. Sometimes they do. It can be hard to prove and some argue that they don't want to see it in the public eye.It was also illegal in the 1800s which is why they jailed over a 1000 polygamists and had warrants out for the arrest of the church leaders. Many LDS believe it wasn't illegal until 1890 and then they all stopped it but no, it was always illegal when the LDS practiced it An easy proof is that most of Joseph Smith's marriages occurred in Illinois. Here is a copy of the Illinois law citing bigamy as illegal:The Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833 clearly stated that polygamy was illegal. It reads:"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred." Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99
USU78 Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 I'm not sure exactly why the law today doesn't go after all polygamists as it is illegal in the USA. Sometimes they do. It can be hard to prove and some argue that they don't want to see it in the public eye.It was also illegal in the 1800s which is why they jailed over a 1000 polygamists and had warrants out for the arrest of the church leaders. Many LDS believe it wasn't illegal until 1890 and then they all stopped it but no, it was always illegal when the LDS practiced it An easy proof is that most of Joseph Smith's marriages occurred in Illinois. Here is a copy of the Illinois law citing bigamy as illegal:The Illinois Anti-bigamy Law enacted February 12th, 1833 clearly stated that polygamy was illegal. It reads:"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred." Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99You misread the statute which is, indeed, typical. It requires a second marriage by a person already married. Your problem with prosecuting it is that the polygynist sealings for time/eternity after first marriages were not and were not claimed to be legal marriages. If you read the old stuff, BY and others talked a lot about "the world" and its laws not being relevant to The Principle. They made an excellent point.If you were to read more modern statutes, you would find they contain language addressing this "out." There was, moreover, this problem: The federal common law (which applied in Utah until the vindictive reconstruction acts changed things) didn't have anything useful that would allow prosecution of Mormon polygyny.After those acts were passed in relatively quick succession, each being more brutal than the last, the fight became a Court fight that continued, while the prosecutions continued, until the Supreme Court made its rulings in the Reynolds case. Prior to the decision in that case, there was every reason to believe the Free Exercise Clause of the Ist Amendment prohibited those very acts I referred to. The Reynolds court did rhetorical backflips in order to make "free exercise," an action verb with modifier, turn into "free belief but you'd better not act on it." The Framers surely never intended such a thing, but AntiMormon hatred can motivate all sorts of disingenuousness.
cinepro Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 You misread the statute which is, indeed, typical. It requires a second marriage by a person already married. Your problem with prosecuting it is that the polygynist sealings for time/eternity after first marriages were not and were not claimed to be legal marriages. If you read the old stuff, BY and others talked a lot about "the world" and its laws not being relevant to The Principle. They made an excellent point.Wow. So if the Illinois statute had been worded just a little differently, think how different Church history might be. No polygamy until Utah!
mapman Posted January 13, 2011 Posted January 13, 2011 What is the best place? Mormons seem to sugarcoat their history whereas 'anti-Mormons' exaggerate the worst. Is there anything unbiased and very accurate?The ideal way would be to look at primary sources and develop your own opinions. I realize that isn't usually practical. Books that cite and represent a lot of primary sources correctly are the more practical. As has been stated, Rough Stone Rolling is the best biography of Joseph Smith that has been written. I bet you could find a copy in a nearby library. If you want to learn about polygamy, I have found that this website has a lot of useful information: Joseph Smith's Polygamy. I admit that my historical research has been devoted to Joseph's lifetime so I'm not sure what the best sources for later Mormon history are. The thing with history is that you can't really get a good understanding of what happened without putting a lot of time and effort, so if you really want to understand you have to go looking.Some more websites I have found to be useful:josephsmithpapers.orgmi.byu.edubyustudies.byu.edulib.byu.edursc.byu.edulds.orgsignaturebooks.comsaintswithouthalos.commwdl.comfairlds.orgboap.orgsolomonspalding.comHope that helps.
High Priest Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 You misread the statute which is, indeed, typical. It requires a second marriage by a person already married. Your problem with prosecuting it is that the polygynist sealings for time/eternity after first marriages were not and were not claimed to be legal marriages. If you read the old stuff, BY and others talked a lot about "the world" and its laws not being relevant to The Principle. They made an excellent point.If you were to read more modern statutes, you would find they contain language addressing this "out." There was, moreover, this problem: The federal common law (which applied in Utah until the vindictive reconstruction acts changed things) didn't have anything useful that would allow prosecution of Mormon polygyny.After those acts were passed in relatively quick succession, each being more brutal than the last, the fight became a Court fight that continued, while the prosecutions continued, until the Supreme Court made its rulings in the Reynolds case. Prior to the decision in that case, there was every reason to believe the Free Exercise Clause of the Ist Amendment prohibited those very acts I referred to. The Reynolds court did rhetorical backflips in order to make "free exercise," an action verb with modifier, turn into "free belief but you'd better not act on it." The Framers surely never intended such a thing, but AntiMormon hatred can motivate all sorts of disingenuousness.Well FAIR admits it was illegal in Ilinois and in general:Polygamy was certainly declared illegal during the Utah-era anti-polygamy crusade, and arguably illegal under the Illinois anti-bigamy statutes. This is hardly new information, and Church members and their critics knew it.9 Modern members of the Church generally miss the significance of this fact, however: the practice of polygamy was a clear case of civil disobedience. http://www.fairlds.o...evarication.pdfJohn Taylor also admitted that polygamy in general was illegal:I was asked, "Do you believe in obeying the laws of the United States?" '"Yes I do, in all except one"
cdowis Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 cdowis said "He was sealed to them. There is absolutely no evidence that he had an intimate relationship with the women who were already married. There is no evidence that he fathered any children outside his marriage with Emma."It seems that some FAIR apologists believe that Joseph may have had sex with the women that he married that had other husbands:My statement was neutral regarding such physical relations. You can draw your own conclusion from the DNA research.
High Priest Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 My statement was neutral regarding such physical relations. You can draw your own conclusion from the DNA research.It's unlikely DNA research would show Joseph fathered kids by women that had other husbands. If Joseph married some 33 women, he obviously couldn't spend much time with each of them (especially when he had to conceal many of these encounters from Emma), whereas their first husbands would be spending far greater time with them so any offspring would likely come from those husbands. I agree with the FAIR writer that said, in regard to Joseph's marriages to women already married : "This is not to argue, I hasten to add, that such marriages must not or could not involve sexuality. I believe they were legitimate marriages, and as such could easily accommodate righteous marital relations."http://en.fairmormon...pter#Conclusion
ERayR Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 No "claim" here.I was raised in the church. Pioneer stock. Mission in the 70's. Married in the temple. Served in numerous EQ presidencies and Bishoprics. Last calling was a 5 year stint in Bishopric and then 3 months as HP group leader when I asked to be released. All of my sons served missions and all of my children were married in the temple. I'm still happily married............ Read the BOM in excess of eight times cover to cover and studied it all my life since my missionary days. It never came across as a document I was completely comfortable with. After starting an in depth study of Joseph and church history about 8 years ago....I now know why.It also never had the same spiritual effect on me as the Bible.......huge difference.Why do you deride those whose experience differs from yours. Wouldn't the Christian thing to do is be happy for them?
ERayR Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 True, but they are a tad more accurate than the history told by official LDS Church sources...CFR
Vance Posted January 15, 2011 Posted January 15, 2011 CFRA CFR for that statement won't do any good. Jon63 has been banned.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.