Wrestling With Polyandry

[why me]

Oh no, you're the "saint" here, not the critics or disbelievers, remember? So act accordingly.

I model myself after Joseph Smith who was at times prone to anger when dealing with apostates. Hard to be like Christ.

[canard78]

This is my dilemma, ever since reading "In Sacred Loneliness", it was only a few chapters in that I become obsessed with all things mormon. Now the problem is trying to gain trust of the leaders of the church, or the beginning leaders of the church. The current leaders are awesome men, who are doing the best they can with what is now a problem in the church. I'm trying to remain trusting of the beginnings, where they were true and where they hit a bump.

My husband and I have blow ups, usually when I'm listening to former mormons turned evangelical. There's a program on TV20 called exmormonfiles with Bishop Earl, a former LDS bishop. Well, everytime I watch a show like that (last night), my husband totally starts making fun of them, or saying something derogatory. He'll talk through the whole thing. Then we fight and I think he's got zero respect. Now I believe I'm the one with zero respect for him, I shouldn't watch with him in the room. He does have issues with the church but still holds onto some belief, like the belief that the church needed to be restored and have prophets/apostles lead it. So now I'm thinking okay maybe he's right, and it's like I can't seem to rest on that or not. It's terribly difficult when the trust isn't there. My feelings on JS polyandry is that it never should have come to be. I keep thinking It was against God's teachings, for one thing it appears to be adultery. One of the ten commandments is adultery and even if you look upon another woman/man with lust in your heart it can be considered adultery.

What is the fruit of polygamy/polyandry? Is it good fruit? Not in my opinion, my big fallout was seeing the fruit of it in the FLDS church. And now the fruit of people wavering in their testimony of the church because of it. I believe that it only means one can't rely on a church but on a relationship. Church is good, I know we need a congregation of same believers and it's good to have support and be able to serve one another. But shouldn't we realise that religion can be man made? And that will enable one to skip an allegience to manmade and go to the source, Him. Dunno...... Btw, CD this isn't all directed to you, just using your post to jump off of and I hear ya on what you said!

Given you'd replied to a post talking about the "father of lies" I couldn't help but smile at your comment of watching an ex-Mormon, evangelical preacher. They offer little in the way of balance and rarely give detailed sources, quoting and requiting slander as if it were established fact. I had a friend once ask (and was convinced) "I heard your prophet has to have sex on a marble table with every new bride in the temple before she is given to her husband?" I told her with not a hint of irony that yes of course he does, but only after he's sacrificed 3 goats and dressed himself in their blood-soaked skins while chanting ancient pagan incantations backwards.

As a fellow traveller on the path to seeking a way to "stay LDS"... can I kindly encourage you to find better sources? At least ones you can go and cross-reference and double check. Some critics (e.g. Dan Vogel who posts here) still have a clear agenda, but at least they list their sources so you can consider them for yourself.

A few months back we discussed that guy with the blonde curly hair getting kicked off his show. As an example I'd watched one of his clips and shown how he had told some outright 'lies' and a few half but distorted truths.

[canard78]

It is not evident that the Lord decided that it was time to remove Joseph. That would have been done via the Council and by revelation so that there would have been no question in anyone's mind about the practice.

Glenn

That's not how it's done today though is it? We leave our prophet in place until his mortal turn has finished. His calling is until death takes him.

In fact, I can't think of many of the scriptural prophets that have been replaced... They've mainly been released by death.

[Tacenda]

Given you'd replied to a post talking about the "father of lies" I couldn't help but smile at your comment of watching an ex-Mormon, evangelical preacher. They offer little in the way of balance and rarely give detailed sources, quoting and requiting slander as if it were established fact. I had a friend once ask (and was convinced) "I heard your prophet has to have sex on a marble table with every new bride in the temple before she is given to her husband?" I told her with not a hint of irony that yes of course he does, but only after he's sacrificed 3 goats and dressed himself in their blood-soaked skins while chanting ancient pagan incantations backwards.

As a fellow traveller on the path to seeking a way to "stay LDS"... can I kindly encourage you to find better sources? At least ones you can go and cross-reference and double check. Some critics (e.g. Dan Vogel who posts here) still have a clear agenda, but at least they list their sources so you can consider them for yourself.

A few months back we discussed that guy with the blonde curly hair getting kicked off his show. As an example I'd watched one of his clips and shown how he had told some outright 'lies' and a few half but distorted truths.

Can you remember which show? If it's who I'm thinking of, I've watched every single one, what did he lie about? You can PM me. I'm still after truth no matter what.

[Glenn101]

That's not how it's done today though is it? We leave our prophet in place until his mortal turn has finished. His calling is until death takes him.

In fact, I can't think of many of the scriptural prophets that have been replaced... They've mainly been released by death.

If a prophet were to err greatly enough to warrant a removal, that is how it would be done. Scripturally there have been very few prophets that have erred to such an extent. The usual method would be for God to issue a "course correction" to an errant prophet, and that course correction so noted scripturally for everyone to understand that the prophet had erred.

This was the case with Jonah. Moses was called out by the Lord and was not allowed to enter the promised land because of a mistake he had made. However, it was not such a great mistake that the Lord removed him from his office.

When Eli failed to issue a course correction to his sons, he was removed from office rather accidentally or maybe by his own hand, but it was recorded for the Children of Israel to know that he had erred.

When prophets preached that which was objectionable to the Children of Israel, they often gave those prophets an early release by death.

It is evident that Joseph Smith had been sealed to several women before he was ordered to reveal section 132. After he had received his early release by the hand of man, section 132 was still canonized as scripture. Note what verse 49 of that section says, "For I am the Lord thy God, and will be with thee even unto the end of the world, and through all eternity; for verily I seal upon you your exaltation, and prepare a throne for you in the kingdom of my Father, with Abraham your father."

As has been noted elsewhere, the Lord said that he would forgive Joseph of his trespasses. However, those trespasses are not delineated. However, repentance has to come before forgiveness, and Joseph did not repudiate the things that he had taught concerning plural wives, etc.

After Joseph's death, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Eliza R. Snow, and Emma Smith all reported visitations by Joseph, with Joseph instructing the two presidents of the church in matters of the church.

Seems that God still holds Joseph in pretty high esteem, while we labor here with the mote and beam.

Glenn

[canard78]

Can you remember which show? If it's who I'm thinking of, I've watched every single one, what did he lie about? You can PM me. I'm still after truth no matter what.

In the thread in the social hall that you started (after he had been sacked from Heart of the Matter) I gave some examples. I'm not calling him a liar. Just ill-informed and repeating the inaccuracies of others. For example there was a show where he insisted there are coins in the Book of Mormon. There are none. He probably wasn't lying, just repeating the stuff he'd read elsewhere. Given the people who present those shows have already reached their conclusion about Joseph Smith then it's unlikely they will be particularly rigorous in checking their sources when reading and sharing things that paint him in a bad light.

[Teancum]

Well for me personally it seems clear that God had nothing to do whatsoever with Joseph Smith's foray into polygamy or polyandry. It seems to me that the evidence we have demonstrates there was little godly about it. The subterfuge involved, the duress placed by Joseph on many of the women he wanted to marry, the lying to his wife and then coercion used to force her into acceptance of the practice and so on just seem to cry out against God ordering Joseph to do this by sending and angel with a flaming sword to threaten Joseph with if he delayed implementation any further. Polyandry just nails my conclusion that this was all man made. There was no reason for it.

What Joseph believed and what motivated him to introduce polygamy is another topic for another thread.

What is interesting is how hard believing members have to wrangle to reconcile this dark spot in LDS history. Books, discussions, speculations, justifications and so on. Why is that when the simplistic answer is that it was not of God? Joseph was not the first powerful religious leader to introduce abnormal sexual practices into his religion nor was he the last. Why do LDS believers so readily reject all others who have claimed some sort of strange sexual practice into their faith but not Joseph Smith. The answer is simple. If it was not of God but concluding that can put into question all of what Joseph did and cast doubts on the divinity of the restoration. Really it all boils down to whether one really believes God told Joseph to do this or not.

[Calm]

Why is that when the simplistic answer is that it was not of God?

The problem for me accepting that as the simplest answer is that others had spiritual visions and confirmation that the principle was correct and of God and that is why they accepted that Joseph was telling the truth. Edited June 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Teancum:

"Really it all boils down to whether one really believes God told Joseph to do this or not".

That I agree with.

[Deborah]

I think people worry too much about how the early saints practiced plural marriage and make the mistake of equating it with the fringe groups today, particularly the FLDS. It was a very serious and sacred obligation and one that was difficult for them. What is ironic no one seems to criticize the promiscuous actions today of having one partner after another without marriage as much as they do a people who sanctified multiple relationships by a religious ceremony.

People need to get a grip and realize that whatever they think of plural marriage out of those marriages came many of the future leaders of the church, including prophets and apostles. By their fruits....? It was a time of great testing. And because only the faithful remained it set the foundation for a righteous people. Furthermore looking at sealings in terms of mortality narrows the understanding of what it means in eternity. I don't think we can begin to grasp the true meaning in this life.

[Tacenda]

In the thread in the social hall that you started (after he had been sacked from Heart of the Matter) I gave some examples. I'm not calling him a liar. Just ill-informed and repeating the inaccuracies of others. For example there was a show where he insisted there are coins in the Book of Mormon. There are none. He probably wasn't lying, just repeating the stuff he'd read elsewhere. Given the people who present those shows have already reached their conclusion about Joseph Smith then it's unlikely they will be particularly rigorous in checking their sources when reading and sharing things that paint him in a bad light.

He was probably referring to an older Alma chapter 11 heading, that mentions coins. Below is c/p from fair.

The actual text of the 1830 Book of Mormon does not mention coins. The word "coins" was added in the 1920 edition to the chapter heading for Alma 11. In the 1948 edition of the Book of Mormon, we see the following chapter heading:

Judges and their compensation—Nephite coins and measures—Zeezrom counfounded by Amulek

The chapter headings have been subject to change over the years. Note the absence of the word "coins" from the chapter heading for Alma 11 found in the current edition of the Book of Mormon on the official Church website "lds.org":

The Nephite monetary system is set forth—Amulek contends with Zeezrom—Christ will not save people in their sins—Only those who inherit the kingdom of heaven are saved—All men will rise in immortality—There is no death after the Resurrection. About 82 B.C.

The pieces of gold and silver described in Alma 11:1-20 are not coins, but a surprisingly sophisticated^[1] system of weights and measures that is consistent with Mesoamerican proto-monetary practices.^[2] BYU Professor Daniel C. Peterson notes,

It is, alas, quite true that there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of Book of Mormon coins. Not even in the Book of Mormon itself. The text of the Book of Mormon never mentions the word 'coin' or any variant of it. The reference to 'Nephite coinage' in the chapter heading to Alma 11 is not part of the original text, and is mistaken. Alma 11 is almost certainly talking about standardized weights of metal—a historical step toward coinage, but not yet the real thing"

[3]

The mention of "Nephite coinage" in the chapter heading of Alma 11 is in error. The chapter headings are not part of the inspired text. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who composed the chapter headings for the heavily revised 1981 edition of the LDS scriptures, said:

[As for the] Joseph Smith Translation items, the chapter headings, Topical Guide, Bible Dictionary, footnotes, the Gazetteer, and the maps. None of these are perfect; they do not of themselves determine doctrine; there have been and undoubtedly now are mistakes in them. Cross-references, for instance, do not establish and never were intended to prove that parallel passages so much as pertain to the same subject. They are aids and helps only.

[4]

Some critics have attempted to argue that the text's reference to "different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value," means that these were, in fact, coins. In short, they read this as a reference to "gold and silver pieces [i.e., coins]."

Such critics ignore that "pieces of gold and silver" is not necessarily the same as "gold pieces" or "silver pieces." They have not paid close attention to the text.

Sorenson noted in 1985: Most recently a burial containing 12,000 pieces of metal "money" (though not coins as such) was found in Ecuador, for the first time confirming that some ancient South Americans had the idea of accumulating a fortune in more or less standard units of metal wealth. Such a startling find in Mesoamerica could change our present limited ideas.^[5]

Here we see that "pieces of metal" can act as a unit of exchange without being "coins."

Likewise, Webster's 1828 dictionary mentions coins as a possible use of the word in the eighth definition. But, earlier definitions do not require the application to coinage: 1. A fragment or part of any thing separated from the whole, in any manner, by cutting, splitting, breaking or tearing; as, to cut in pieces, break in pieces, tear in pieces, pull in pieces, &c.; a piece of a rock; a piece of paper. 2. A part of any thing, though not separated, or separated only in idea; not the whole; a portion; as a piece of excellent knowledge. 3. A distinct part or quantity; a part considered by itself, or separated from the rest only by a boundary or divisional line; as a piece of land in the meadow or on the mountain. 4. A separate part; a thing or portion distinct from others of a like kind; as a piece of timber; a piece of cloth; a piece of paper hangings.^[6]

Clearly, any of these definitions could apply to standard weights of precious metal used in exchange. (It is interesting to note that by 1913, Webster's dictionary shifted the definition involving coins to third place: a suggestion that use of the term may have evolved.)

Edited June 9, 2013 by Tacenda

[Teancum]

The problem for me accepting that as the simplest answer is that others had spiritual visions and confirmation that the principle was correct and of God and that is why they accepted that Joseph was telling the truth.

Do you give equal credence to the women who rejected Smith's proposals and to those who turned against him because of polygamy? Do you think that given the position some women were in, the fact that they were young, that there whole lives were tied to the LDS church, that their families were immersed in the church, that the man making the proposal was viewed by them as a prophet and by all accounts was rather charismatic? I know it is not kosher here to question these women and their testimony or witness they say they received but given their circumstances it is not surprising that those who agreed to polygamy with Joseph had all sorts of cognitive issues to deal with.

Last of all other women in other sects with powerful leaders who claimed God told them to take multiple wives or practice some other deviant sexual practice claim similar witnesses or feelings that what they entered into was from God, do you give them the same credence as you do the LDS women's or other followers of Joseph Smith? If not why?

[thesometimesaint]

You answered your own question. ""Really it all boils down to whether one really believes God told Joseph to do this or not".

[Teancum]

I think people worry too much about how the early saints practiced plural marriage and make the mistake of equating it with the fringe groups today, particularly the FLDS. It was a very serious and sacred obligation and one that was difficult for them. What is ironic no one seems to criticize the promiscuous actions today of having one partner after another without marriage as much as they do a people who sanctified multiple relationships by a religious ceremony.

People need to get a grip and realize that whatever they think of plural marriage out of those marriages came many of the future leaders of the church, including prophets and apostles. By their fruits....? It was a time of great testing. And because only the faithful remained it set the foundation for a righteous people. Furthermore looking at sealings in terms of mortality narrows the understanding of what it means in eternity. I don't think we can begin to grasp the true meaning in this life.

I don't agree that people don't criticize other promiscuous activity. I certainly don't support promiscuity. As for your comment about worrying too much about plural marriage well great if that works for you. But for me we are dealing with people who instituted doctrine claiming God spoke to them and in this case even to the point of claiming an angel was sent with sword in hand to kill Joseph if he did not institute plural marriage. It was a key issue, one the LDS Church that followed Brigham fought almost to the destruction of the church over. When it was clear that the US government was going to win on this, in spite of the LDS leaders teaching it was essential to exaltation and that it would never be given up the Church did just that. As for testing etc, well whatever. To me that is a cop out.

[Teancum]

You answered your own question. ""Really it all boils down to whether one really believes God told Joseph to do this or not".

Indeed. I think the clear answer is no. Others disagree, if you say yes why do you think Joseph is the only one God would command to do this and reject all,others who claim God told them to do similar things?

[thesometimesaint]

I don't agree that people don't criticize other promiscuous activity. I certainly don't support promiscuity. As for your comment about worrying too much about plural marriage well great if that works for you. But for me we are dealing with people who instituted doctrine claiming God spoke to them and in this case even to the point of claiming an angel was sent with sword in hand to kill Joseph if he did not institute plural marriage. It was a key issue, one the LDS Church that followed Brigham fought almost to the destruction of the church over. When it was clear that the US government was going to win on this, in spite of the LDS leaders teaching it was essential to exaltation and that it would never be given up the Church did just that. As for testing etc, well whatever. To me that is a cop out.

Wilford Woodruf was given a vision of what would happen if the Saints persevered in practicing polygamy.

[thesometimesaint]

Indeed. I think the clear answer is no. Others disagree, if you say yes why do you think Joseph is the only one God would command to do this and reject all,others who claim God told them to do similar things?

The exact same reason I believe the truth claims of this Church and none others.

[Questing Beast]

Well for me personally it seems clear that God had nothing to do whatsoever with Joseph Smith's foray into polygamy or polyandry. It seems to me that the evidence we have demonstrates there was little godly about it. The subterfuge involved, the duress placed by Joseph on many of the women he wanted to marry, the lying to his wife and then coercion used to force her into acceptance of the practice and so on just seem to cry out against God ordering Joseph to do this by sending and angel with a flaming sword to threaten Joseph with if he delayed implementation any further. Polyandry just nails my conclusion that this was all man made. There was no reason for it.

What Joseph believed and what motivated him to introduce polygamy is another topic for another thread.

What is interesting is how hard believing members have to wrangle to reconcile this dark spot in LDS history. Books, discussions, speculations, justifications and so on. Why is that when the simplistic answer is that it was not of God? Joseph was not the first powerful religious leader to introduce abnormal sexual practices into his religion nor was he the last. Why do LDS believers so readily reject all others who have claimed some sort of strange sexual practice into their faith but not Joseph Smith. The answer is simple. If it was not of God but concluding that can put into question all of what Joseph did and cast doubts on the divinity of the restoration. Really it all boils down to whether one really believes God told Joseph to do this or not.

I believe that "God" tells us things constantly. Some of us live in the metaphysical "realm" as much as the physical (and some really out there people live almost continually in the metaphysical, institutionalized patients are probably often in this category). JS, as I view his life, was heavily into contact with the metaphysical, at times so powerfully that it bled over into the physical world and colored it thus changing the reality for JS. Did he really believe that he had seen angel with a drawn sword? Probably, because at the same time JS was intensely physical, which means sexual. He had to mingle his religious identity successfully with his sexual identity. If he did not, then the physical would overpower him and his life would become a descending spiral into carnality. It's a theory. The creation of a religion took his mind off of the physical, and the metaphysical impacted the physical in ways that became increasingly revelatory. Becoming the central figure in a dynamic new religion was heady stuff! I think JS handled that about as well as a mortal can, imperfect though he was. He never succumbed to the obvious temptation to be more to his people than he believed that he was, he even disparaged his own righteousness and spirituality or worthiness, asserting that God chooses the weak things of the earth to confound the wise, etc. Yet he had moments when his ego seems to have gotten the upper hand and caused him to repent (his altercation with his older brother William over a blowup during a debate is a good illustration of JS's ego getting in the way and making him say things in anger; his repentance afterward was all focused on "saving" William, who had renounced his apostleship over his own greater loss of temper, and beating Joseph almost to a pulp; JS obtained his brother's forgiveness, and gave William complete forgiveness for the beating, but JS also did not let the incident fade entirely to obscurity, but rather on occasion mentioned how he continued to suffer lasting effects of a weakening character on the side where William had injured him). He never let this stop him from doing what he felt justified in doing, despite the wickedness of his fallen character, as other men, he nevertheless obtained an assurance that his heart was right before God: "I never sinned in my heart", in other words, he never contemplated sin and decided to carry it out, but did make mistakes, as other men, etc.

Where plural or "patriarchal" marriage was concerned, there is every reason to suppose that the weight of evidence falls on the side of sexual dimensions to it. Nauvoo produced some 132 documented children from the practice of plural marriage. None of that was a secret from the instigator of it! The polyandry aspect convinced me, at last, that it was indeed only JS's conviction and not a command from God. Yet "God" knew what would occur as the result of polygany (the Church never practiced polyandry): the religion would go into the wilderness and thrive and become the fourth of the great "Abrahamic religions", distinctly fresh and unique, and become a great influence in the world for much good. So a manmade religion, again, accomplishes something that seems to be a greater whole than the sum of its parts. That tells me well enough that "God" is behind all of it. Even if all of us, beginning with JS, make many assumptions vis-a-vis what "God" is telling us....

[Teancum]

Wilford Woodruf was given a vision of what would happen if the Saints persevered in practicing polygamy.

Or he simply saw the pragmatism of surrendering, if God knew the church would ultimately give it up why didn't he have John Taylor abolish it sooner rather than letter President Taylor die in hiding. Seem like pretty sloppy planning.

[Teancum]

The exact same reason I believe the truth claims of this Church and none others.

.

Yep. And to consider that maybe God really had nothing to do with it puts that world view in jeopardy.

[thesometimesaint]

Agency my friend Agency.

[Teancum]

I believe that "God" tells us things constantly. Some of us live in the metaphysical "realm" as much as the physical (and some really out there people live almost continually in the metaphysical, institutionalized patients are probably often in this category). JS, as I view his life, was heavily into contact with the metaphysical, at times so powerfully that it bled over into the physical world and colored it thus changing the reality for JS. Did he really believe that he had seen angel with a drawn sword? Probably, because at the same time JS was intensely physical, which means sexual. He had to mingle his religious identity successfully with his sexual identity. If he did not, then the physical would overpower him and his life would become a descending spiral into carnality. It's a theory. The creation of a religion took his mind off of the physical, and the metaphysical impacted the physical in ways that became increasingly revelatory. Becoming the central figure in a dynamic new religion was heady stuff! I think JS handled that about as well as a mortal can, imperfect though he was. He never succumbed to the obvious temptation to be more to his people than he believed that he was, he even disparaged his own righteousness and spirituality or worthiness, asserting that God chooses the weak things of the earth to confound the wise, etc. Yet he had moments when his ego seems to have gotten the upper hand and caused him to repent (his altercation with his older brother William over a blowup during a debate is a good illustration of JS's ego getting in the way and making him say things in anger; his repentance afterward was all focused on "saving" William, who had renounced his apostleship over his own greater loss of temper, and beating Joseph almost to a pulp; JS obtained his brother's forgiveness, and gave William complete forgiveness for the beating, but JS also did not let the incident fade entirely to obscurity, but rather on occasion mentioned how he continued to suffer lasting effects of a weakening character on the side where William had injured him). He never let this stop him from doing what he felt justified in doing, despite the wickedness of his fallen character, as other men, he nevertheless obtained an assurance that his heart was right before God: "I never sinned in my heart", in other words, he never contemplated sin and decided to carry it out, but did make mistakes, as other men, etc.

Where plural or "patriarchal" marriage was concerned, there is every reason to suppose that the weight of evidence falls on the side of sexual dimensions to it. Nauvoo produced some 132 documented children from the practice of plural marriage. None of that was a secret from the instigator of it! The polyandry aspect convinced me, at last, that it was indeed only JS's conviction and not a command from God. Yet "God" knew what would occur as the result of polygany (the Church never practiced polyandry): the religion would go into the wilderness and thrive and become the fourth of the great "Abrahamic religions", distinctly fresh and unique, and become a great influence in the world for much good. So a manmade religion, again, accomplishes something that seems to be a greater whole than the sum of its parts. That tells me well enough that "God" is behind all of it. Even if all of us, beginning with JS, make many assumptions vis-a-vis what "God" is telling us....

Intriguing ideas. Thanks for sharing them.

[Teancum]

Agency my friend Agency.

I guess I am dense but I miss your point here.

[thesometimesaint]

.

Yep. And to consider that maybe God really had nothing to do with it puts that world view in jeopardy.

Maybe God did have plenty to do with it. It doesn't put my world view in jeopardy any more than Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac does. That was his trial not mine. Polygamy was the early Saints trial. I am glad it is not mine. Who knows what trials the Saints will have a hundred plus years into the future.

[thesometimesaint]

I guess I am dense but I miss your point here.

We all have Agency to do or not do as we so choose.