Polygamy/Polandry

[Nathan6329]

Here are a couple concerns I have with the LDS Religion.

They teach that polygamy was accepted at one time because it was ordained of God, but Joseph Smith had married women that were already married. Many members say it was for purposes of them being sealed, but why would the women need to be sealed during their lifetime if they could be sealed to their husbands through temple work?

Also, if he married them for the purposes so that they could become sealed, then why did Brigham Young marry some widows of Joseph Smith? They already were sealed so why did Brigham Young need to practice polygamy on some widows who had already fulfilled the covenants?

When I first was studying the church someone explained that polygamy was accepted a lot because of the time they were in and a woman being unwed was unacceptable to society. They said that Joseph Smith didn't have sex with any of his wives, but others say that polygamy was practiced as a means of replenishing the Earth. Also, many believe that there was no birth control back then so it would be very hard for him to be having sex and not have any offspring, but contraceptives first began in ancient times. Going over all the facts there is some cognitive dissonance to those who accept that this practice was of God because it doesn't add up to one result, but yet many different results and those that make no sense.

[emeliza]

It wasn't until Wilford Woodruff was the prophet that sealings became what they are today. When sealings first began, everyone thought they needed to be sealed to the prophet. They were people sealed to the prophet as his children that he was not related to. There were many women sealed to the prophet and it was thought this would seal their families together somehow.

During Brigham Young's time sealing became even more about sealing people together left and right. He had many 'adopted' sons and I think daughters sealed to him that were close to his own age. I believe there were some people who were sealed as servants instead of family members. I know that Jane Manning requested to be sealed to the prophet Joseph Smith as his servant after his death, though it didn't happen.

John Taylor continued with having people sealed to him.

Wilford Woodruff came along and was trying to decide which prophet to be sealed to as his parents. He received a revelation in which the Lord asked him if he did not have parents of his own. Wilford realized at that point that he was supposed to be sealed to his own parents, not to past prophets. It was at this point that we started to work more on ancestry and families were sealed together rather than just people being sealed willy nilly to others that they wanted a connection with.

So when it comes to looking at sealings and attempting to understand what they mean, I don't believe the first three prophets of this dispensation are who you should look to. I believe they were just sort of going with gut instinct as they knew they were supposed to be doing sealings. I think you should look to the time after Wilford Woodruff's revelation and when things became more as they are now.

Edited March 10, 2011 by emeliza

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Joseph Smith neither taught nor practice polygamy/plural marriage/spiritual wiferey/etc...

**see link in my signature***

[kolipoki09]

Joseph Smith neither taught nor practice polygamy/plural marriage/spiritual wiferey/etc...

**see link in my signature***

BookofMormonLuvr, how do you explain my wife's great-great-great grandmother, who was married to Joseph Smith during her lifetime?

Are you saying Fanny Alger never happened?

What about Eliza R. Snow? Helen Mar Kimball? Lucinda Morgan Harris? Mary Rollins Lightner...and over a score of others?

Good historical inquiry understands that conclusions are open to correction as new understanding and information comes from ongoing study.

[Ceeboo]

Joseph Smith neither taught nor practice polygamy/plural marriage/spiritual wiferey/etc...

Peace,

Ceeboo

[emeliza]

I don't think I should respond to BookofMormonluvr since this is the social forum. That being said, I think that 99.9% of the other LDS members on this board believe that JS practiced polygamy.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I don't think I should respond to BookofMormonluvr since this is the social forum. That being said, I think that 99.9% of the other LDS members on this board believe that JS practiced polygamy.

And only 8 people understood correctly and entered the Ark.

Majority opinion does not equal truth. If it did we would all be Catholic.

Edited March 10, 2011 by BookofMormonLuvr

[mercyngrace]

I don't think I should respond to BookofMormonluvr since this is the social forum. That being said, I think that 99.9% of the other LDS members on this board believe that JS practiced polygamy.

Em,

BOML isn't LDS.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Em,

BOML isn't LDS.

Thank you, I didn't notice the "other" in her post.

M&G is correct, I am not LDS, I am RRLDS (Restorationist RLDS), not to be confused with Community of Christ.

Edited March 10, 2011 by BookofMormonLuvr

[kolipoki09]

And only 8 people understood correctly and entered the Ark.

Majority opinion does not equal truth. If it did we would all be Catholic.

We're not saying that majority opinion constitutes truth, since ad populum is a logical fallacy -- Hence, the reason why I have appealed to credibility here and elsewhere as the reason why we ought to accept truth. Thus, if an armchair RRLDS historian selectively uses passages from newspaper articles and letters from roughly 1832-1844, rips most of them out of context, and ignores any evidence to the contrary, does that equal truth?

[emeliza]

Thank you, I didn't notice the "other" in her post.

M&G is correct, I am not LDS, I am RRLDS (Restorationist RLDS), not to be confused with Community of Christ.

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize you were RRLDS.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

We're not saying that majority opinion constitutes truth, since ad populum is a logical fallacy -- Hence, the reason why I have appealed to credibility here and elsewhere as the reason why we ought to accept truth. Thus, if an armchair RRLDS historian selectively uses passages from newspaper articles and letters from roughly 1832-1844, rips most of them out of context, and ignores any evidence to the contrary, does that equal truth?

Richard Price is an "armchair historian"? Have you studied his 20+ years of research on the issue? Or is anyone who disagrees with your apologetic on the issue just an "armchair historian"?

[ttribe]

Richard Price is an "armchair historian"? Have you studied his 20+ years of research on the issue? Or is anyone who disagrees with your apologetic on the issue just an "armchair historian"?

Interesting...I just clicked on the "Church of Christ Restored" link in the sig line; it seems they have no problem taking images from the LDS Church for their own (the subtitle - "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" was a dead giveaway).

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Interesting...I just clicked on the "Church of Christ Restored" link in the sig line; it seems they have no problem taking images from the LDS Church for their own (the subtitle - "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" was a dead giveaway).

Is the image being used copyrighted and owned by the LDS Church?

If it is I will be happy to tell the person updating the webpage, and we will get it changed. My wife is a photag major and we could make something similar if we need to.

Edited March 10, 2011 by BookofMormonLuvr

[ttribe]

Is the image being used copyrighted and owned by the LDS Church?

If it is I will be happy to tell the person updating the webpage, and we will get it changed. My wife is a photag major and we could make something similar if we need to.

I'm not sure on the one with the scriptures on a map, but it's pretty obvious that those are scriptures published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It wouldn't surprise me to find that picture at LDS.org somewhere.

The picture of Christ at the door, is copyrighted by Dell Parson and appears to be licensed for use by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (http://lds.org/hf/art/display/1,16842,4218-1-2-80,00.html).

Edited to add: Found the map one here: http://bookofmormonresearch.org/book_of_mormon_articles/book_of_mormon_2

And here: http://mormonfaq.com/about/about-mormon-scriptures

And here:

Hard to tell who owns the rights to that one.

Edited March 10, 2011 by ttribe

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I'm not sure on the one with the scriptures on a map, but it's pretty obvious that those are scriptures published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It wouldn't surprise me to find that picture at LDS.org somewhere.

The picture of Christ at the door, is copyrighted by Dell Parson and appears to be licensed for use by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (http://lds.org/hf/ar...-1-2-80,00.html).

Edited to add: Found the map one here: http://bookofmormonr...ook_of_mormon_2

So you are objecting more to the fact that it is a picture of "your" scriptures being used then anything else. I would point out that the Book of Mormon being used is not, in fact, published by the LDS Church because there is no leather bound edition of solely the Book of Mormon (I would snatch one up in a second if there was)- but every Book of Mormon, except the paperback missionary edition, has the LDS D&C and PofGP attached to it.

Either way, I will look into the copyright issue, especially on Mr. Parson's work, and we will make changes if it is necessary.

BTW, I don't appreciate the unspoken accusation in your posts. It is petty and beneath you.

[ttribe]

So you are objecting more to the fact that it is a picture of "your" scriptures being used then anything else. I would point out that the Book of Mormon being used is not, in fact, published by the LDS Church because there is no leather bound edition of solely the Book of Mormon (I would snatch one up in a second if there was)- but every Book of Mormon, except the paperback missionary edition, has the LDS D&C and PofGP attached to it.

I wasn't explicitly "objecting" to anything. I was pointing out that the picture of the Book of Mormon is CLEARLY one that is published by the SLC LDS Church given the changed title. Given the apparent effort by "you" to remain separate from "us" I should think you'd paid more attention to such minutiae.

Either way, I will look into the copyright issue, especially on Mr. Parson's work, and we will make changes if it is necessary.

That might be wise given that Mr. Parson likely relies on licensing for some portion of his livelihood.

BTW, I don't appreciate the unspoken accusation in your posts. It is petty and beneath you.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on the "unspoken accusation" I supposedly made so I can feel badly about being petty.

Edited March 10, 2011 by ttribe

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I wasn't explicitly "objecting" to anything. I was pointing out that the picture of the Book of Mormon is CLEARLY one that is published by the SLC LDS Church given the changed title. Given the apparent effort by "you" to remain separate from "us" I should think you'd paid more attention to such minutiae.

That might be wise given that Mr. Parson likely relies on licensing for some portion of his livelihood.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on the "unspoken accusation" I supposedly made so I can feel badly about being petty.

Well, it wasn't all that subtle

it seems they have no problem taking images from the LDS Church for their own

The implication being that, as "apostates", we are inherently immoral and have no problem stealing LDS pictures in order to somehow deceive people into thinking we are Mormons just long enough that we can fill their minds with our evil "apostate" doctrine.

Maybe the woman who put together our page thought it was a nice picture, and since we believe in the Bible and Book of Mormon, thought it would show that in an artistic type of way.

I am sure I could find literally hundreds of websites run by LDS Church members that have similar pictures up that they just copied from Google Images. Have you been policing them, or just those darn "apostates"?

Edited March 10, 2011 by BookofMormonLuvr

[ttribe]

Well, it wasn't all that subtle

The implication being that, as "apostates", we are inherently immoral and have no problem stealing LDS pictures in order to somehow deceive people into thinking we are Mormons just long enough that we can fill their minds with our evil "apostate" doctrine.

Maybe the woman who put together our page thought it was a nice picture, and since we believe in the Bible and Book of Mormon, thought it would show that in an artistic type of way.

I am sure I could find literally hundreds of websites run by LDS Church members that have similar pictures up that they just copied from Google Images. Have you been policing them, or just those darn "apostates"?

No such implication. I stated in the next post - "Given the apparent effort by "you" to remain separate from "us" I should think you'd paid more attention to such minutiae." That was the sum total of my meaning.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

No such implication. I stated in the next post - "Given the apparent effort by "you" to remain separate from "us" I should think you'd paid more attention to such minutiae." That was the sum total of my meaning.

Why should the LDS subtitle be an issue? The Book of Mormon is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". If she had posted one with a LDS Triple Combination and a Bible, that would be different. And we really don't hate you as much as you'd like to believe we do.

[ttribe]

Why should the LDS subtitle be an issue? The Book of Mormon is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". If she had posted one with a LDS Triple Combination and a Bible, that would be different.

Just an observation.

And we really don't hate you as much as you'd like to believe we do.

Uh huh - "Joseph Smith was the greatest victim of fraud and conspiracy of the last 500 years. Nothing like it in recorded history. He was simply lied about when something had to be done to justify ... Utah Mormon polygamy."

[kolipoki09]

Richard Price is an "armchair historian"? Have you studied his 20+ years of research on the issue? Or is anyone who disagrees with your apologetic on the issue just an "armchair historian"?

This isn't an apology. I'm familiar with most of Price's work, and have immediate access to almost every one of his publications. Price came from a company that manufactured washing machines and hydraulic brakes. I think it's safe to say that both he and I are armchair historians.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Just an observation.

Uh huh - "Joseph Smith was the greatest victim of fraud and conspiracy of the last 500 years. Nothing like it in recorded history. He was simply lied about when something had to be done to justify ... Utah Mormon polygamy."

[ttribe]

(read in monotone voice) "You are the most persecuted people ever in the history of the world, everybody hates you, and prays that you will burn in the lowest realms of Hades."

Does that make you feel better?

Nope; nor does it make me feel any worse. In fact, I really don't feel anything at all about your comment or his. Just noting that these types of comments stand rather contradictory to your assertion that there isn't a certain amount of acrimony aimed "our" way by the other JSJr-following churches.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Nope; nor does it make me feel any worse. In fact, I really don't feel anything at all about your comment or his. Just noting that these types of comments stand rather contradictory to your assertion that there isn't a certain amount of acrimony aimed "our" way by the other JSJr-following churches.

It goes both ways, brother. I could mine some classic anti-RLDS quotes from your leaders and start a quote war. But I consider it would be a colossal waste of both of our time.