Learning That Joseph Practiced Plural Marriage

[Zakuska]

I find it deplorable and hypocritical that our culture celebrates fornication and serial monogamy while judging stable polygamous relationships as bad.

Amen!

[ERayR]

The fact that society finds it less tolerant doesn't mean that individuals motivated by religious belief hold the same opinions. I think it is less tolerant in the sense that it's something we've seen so abused by the FLDS and other groups that there is a reflex action against it, even among members of the church. In the pioneer days this really was something unprecedented in this country, except of course native American tribes that practiced it, but they after all were barbarians, right. However, the sensibilities of the people would have found it contrary to anything they had ever known.

I think the prevalence of open sex and pornography likewise creates the sense that any one who participates in this does so for lust and no other reason. True that may have been the thoughts at Joseph Smith's time, but I think it is a little hypocritical since whoring was such a common practice among some of even the genteel population.

Just to let you know Jaybear is asking for a defense of something I did not claim. You are being jaybeared.

[Zakuska]

Ah, I see. Thanks. Didn't know that.

There are also several men who were "sealed" to Joseph. Yet nobody that I am aware of have accused him of being homosexual, or of him being sealed to other womens husbands.

I wonder why?

Oh yes, because 14 year old girls and other mens wives makes for a better bludgening tool and sensational knee jerk reactions.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Zakuska

[Jaybear]

We are certainly eyeing the Principle as practiced by the early Saints through eyes of those who are not commanded to live it, plus the over-sexualized culture we now live in that dumbs down love and intimacy with physical acts.

I wouldn't consider Mitt Romney to the be product of today's over sexualized culture.

Can't let you get away with it. I believe there was once a term being used on this board. That term was Being Jaybeared. I am going to have to revive it. Go back to post # 701. You will se that had nothing to do with polygamy but with the sealing of Joseph to two particular groups, how be it small groups.

So now I am going to have to decline your invitation and ask you to go back to Post # 701 and read for comprehension. I will not try to defend something I did not say. I will not be jaybeared.

Two points:

1. My question was directed to Deborah, who said in response:"So? What's your point? It just shows that it's not abhorrent to all women. Certainly "Sister Wives" demonstrated that."

By "it" she was referring to polygamy, not child brides.

If you were refefring only to child brides, then both Deb and I misread your comments. I apologize.

2. The term "jaybear" is past tense because it a derogatory term, used as an insult and against the board rules. I would expect better from you.

[Libs]

There are also several men who were "sealed" to Joseph. Yet nobody that I am aware of have accused him of being homosexual, or of him being sealed to other womens husbands.

I wonder why?

Oh yes, because 14 year old girls and other mens wives makes for a better bludgening tool and sensational knee jerk reactions.

I did know about the men, and believe it or not, many critics have accused him of having homosexual relations.

[ERayR]

I wouldn't consider Mitt Romney to the be product of today's over sexualized culture.

Two points:

1. My question was directed to Deborah, who said in response:"So? What's your point? It just shows that it's not abhorrent to all women. Certainly "Sister Wives" demonstrated that."

By "it" she was referring to polygamy, not child brides.

If you were refefring only to child brides, then both Deb and I misread your comments. I apologize.

2. The term "jaybear" is past tense because it a derogatory term, used as an insult and against the board rules. I would expect better from you.

That being the case I also extend my apologies.

[ERayR]

I wouldn't consider Mitt Romney to the be product of today's over sexualized culture.

However I would like you to answer my question. You posted:

I have it on good authority that its abhorrent to your Church:

Mitt Romney: "The practice of polygamy is abhorrent, it's awful, and it drives me nuts that people who are polygamists keep pretending to use the umbrella of my church," he adds in his ornate office at the State House. "My church abhors it, it excommunicates people who practice it, and it's got nothing to do with my faith."

My question:

Whoa hoss you have lost me. When did Mitt Romney become a spokesman for the LDS Church?

So now please tell me when Mitt Romney became spokesperson for the church.

[KevinG]

I wouldn't consider Mitt Romney to the be product of today's over sexualized culture.

We are all products of today's over-sexualized and overly violent culture. It colors how we see things like marital relations. What else is there to find "abhorrent" about polygamy? Having to share a bathroom? Double the number of bras on the clothes line? Twice the family budget going to manicure services?

[Jaybear]

My question:

So now please tell me when Mitt Romney became spokesperson for the church.

I presume that your question was rhetorical.

Mitt is obviously not an official spokesman. However, in LDS circles, his integrity is above reproach and his opinion, highly valued. If he says the LDS Church considers polygamy to be abhorrent, who are you or I to question Mitt's assessment of the facts.

I certainly don't recall the last time an LDS Church leader or spokesman spoke favorably of polygamy or paid homage to the women who sacrificed much to become plural wives in those early days.

Answer this question: If your ward were to build a float for the days of 47 parade honoring the wives of Joseph Smith, would that float see the light of day?

[ERayR]

I presume that your question was rhetorical.

Mitt is obviously not an official spokesman. However, in LDS circles, his integrity is above reproach and his opinion, highly valued. If he says the LDS Church considers polygamy to be abhorrent, who are you or I to question Mitt's assessment of the facts.

I certainly don't recall the last time an LDS Church leader or spokesman spoke favorably of polygamy or paid homage to the women who sacrificed much to become plural wives in those early days.

Answer this question: If your ward were to build a float for the days of 47 parade honoring the wives of Joseph Smith, would that float see the light of day?

I certainly agree that Mitt Romney is of high moral character. However, I don't remember him condemning polygamy for the church. My memory is that he was asked about his stand on the issue and he answered for himself. Now you have extrapolated that into his answer was authoritative for the church.

[USU78]

As opposed to your non-existent evidence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm wondering what other evidence we could possibly look at, other than the first hand reports, both contemporaneous and reminiscences, of the female practitioners?

Everybody else has a bone to pick, at least arguably.

[Libs]

There are a few studies out there. I haven't really looked into it deeply, but what little I have read has shown polygamy to be good for men (they live longer in polygamous relationships), but not so good for women. Fewer children (which is not necessarily "bad", IMO), but also less wealth, less affection, less of everything, because it is being shared.

[Calm]

Fewer children (which is not necessarily "bad", IMO), but also less wealth, less affection, less of everything, because it is being shared.

This may be the case for modern polygamy, but was not for how it was practiced among LDS as demonstrated by at least Kathryn Daynes' study where she found that immigrant women benefitted by being able to marry more financially stable men since it was the wealthier men who tended to have more wives. That practice spread the wealth around.

[Libs]

Yes, I would think, the wealthier the man, the better off all of the wives would be.

But, they are still sharing the affection and attention of one man, which could be detrimental, both, to the wives and their children (more children, again, more sharing)..

[USU78]

Yes, I would think, the wealthier the man, the better off all of the wives would be.

But, they are still sharing the affection and attention of one man, which could be detrimental, both, to the wives and their children (more children, again, more sharing)..

So . . . historical polygyny encouraged sharing by women, and, presumably, more selflessness.

How is this a bad thing again?

Let's focus on the women . . . I already concede that the men faced a difficult struggle with selfishness and acquisitiveness when they engaged in the practice.

Were women made better human beings?

[Libs]

So . . . historical polygyny encouraged sharing by women, and, presumably, more selflessness.

How is this a bad thing again?

Let's focus on the women . . . I already concede that the men faced a difficult struggle with selfishness and acquisitiveness when they engaged in the practice.

Were women made better human beings?

Probably. But, if it is men who need this lesson more, perhaps there should have been more polyandry.

Women, because we are usually mothers, learn the art of giving and sacrifice through our children. I don't see that sharing a husband would be more beneficial. That one on one support may be the only support a woman is getting, while raising children. I don't think, sharing a husband, would really be that beneficial and could be very detrimental to the woman's psychological health (IMO).

[USU78]

Probably. But, if it is men who need this lesson more, perhaps there should have been more polyandry.

Women, because we are usually mothers, learn the art of giving and sacrifice through our children. I don't see that sharing a husband would be more beneficial. That one on one support may be the only support a woman is getting, while raising children. I don't think, sharing a husband, would really be that beneficial and could be very detrimental to the woman's psychological health (IMO).

Since that decision [to practice limited polygyny] was made far above the paygrades of thee and me, I'm not about to question the bonafides of its author or His spokesman on the subject.

[Libs]

Since that decision [to practice limited polygyny] was made far above the paygrades of thee and me, I'm not about to question the bonafides of its author or His spokesman on the subject.

Yes, well, the bolded part was tongue in cheek, which is why I put the smiley.

[The King's Servant]

I just saw this on a thread that is now locked.

cwald wrote:

Up until he was 35, did cwald never read Doctrine and Covenants 132?

I ask, because I find it enigmatic that a reader of average-or-better comprehension could read that section and not get the message that Joseph not only received a revelation commanding that plurall marriage be instituted in this dispensation but that he taught it to others and practiced it himself.

I believe this. I took out a large, proselytizing book from the library about the history of the church. There wasn't one mention in it about the practice of polygamy, much less the fact that Joseph Smith married girls as young as 14 (promising them exaltation), and the wives of Mormon missionaries away from their homes. That should give some Mormons a little pause for thought - why wasn't that information there? Is it because one must have milk before meat? But, on the other hand, if missionaries are going around telling everybody that Smith actually spoke to God and "restored" Christianity, shouldn't his life be an open book? How does he measure up morally? If I was thinking of joining Mormonism, that would be a big red flag!

[KevinG]

I believe this. I took out a large, proselytizing book from the library about the history of the church. There wasn't one mention in it about the practice of polygamy, much less the fact that Joseph Smith married girls as young as 14 (promising them exaltation), and the wives of Mormon missionaries away from their homes. That should give some Mormons a little pause for thought - why wasn't that information there? Is it because one must have milk before meat? But, on the other hand, if missionaries are going around telling everybody that Smith actually spoke to God and "restored" Christianity, shouldn't his life be an open book? How does he measure up morally? If I was thinking of joining Mormonism, that would be a big red flag!

the details are presented in context in many LDS publications. Again you declare it was hidden because it was not presented in the one book you got from the library?

Not to mention the fallacies of present-ism on the age of the brides, the lack of credibility on the stories of taking wives while their husbands were on missions.

Read more and be selective about your sources or you may find yourself believing a lie.

[USU78]

I believe this. I took out a large, proselytizing book from the library about the history of the church. There wasn't one mention in it about the practice of polygamy, much less the fact that Joseph Smith married girls as young as 14 (promising them exaltation), and the wives of Mormon missionaries away from their homes. That should give some Mormons a little pause for thought - why wasn't that information there? Is it because one must have milk before meat? But, on the other hand, if missionaries are going around telling everybody that Smith actually spoke to God and "restored" Christianity, shouldn't his life be an open book? How does he measure up morally? If I was thinking of joining Mormonism, that would be a big red flag!

It kind of is an open book, isn't it?

[Nevo]

the details are presented in context in many LDS publications.

That is nonsense. CFR.

[KevinG]

That is nonsense. CFR.

Excuse me Mormon related publications.

But if you are interested you can go to journal histories, institute manuals, genealogical records and the Doctrine and Covenants to find out about polygamy and Josephs role.

If you are interested in the salacious details of Joseph and others sexual lives you are on your own.

Edited August 1, 2012 by KevinG

[ERayR]

I believe this. I took out a large, proselytizing book from the library about the history of the church. There wasn't one mention in it about the practice of polygamy, much less the fact that Joseph Smith married girls as young as 14 (promising them exaltation), and the wives of Mormon missionaries away from their homes. That should give some Mormons a little pause for thought - why wasn't that information there? Is it because one must have milk before meat? But, on the other hand, if missionaries are going around telling everybody that Smith actually spoke to God and "restored" Christianity, shouldn't his life be an open book? How does he measure up morally? If I was thinking of joining Mormonism, that would be a big red flag!

Perhaps because they wanted potential converts to join for the right reason - not because of hopes for multiple wives. Did I get it right? Did I?

[thews]

the details are presented in context in many LDS publications. Again you declare it was hidden because it was not presented in the one book you got from the library?

Can you give me a link to these details? A search of "polyandry" on LDS.ORG doesn't turn up anything. http://www.lds.org/search?query=polyandry〈=eng

Not to mention the fallacies of present-ism on the age of the brides, the lack of credibility on the stories of taking wives while their husbands were on missions.

What "fallacies" and "present-ism" are you referring to?

Read more and be selective about your sources or you may find yourself believing a lie.

A "lie" is a strong word. Can you give me an example of the "Lie" you're talking about?