JLHPROF Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Just be glad it is over. We are on a break!
Tacenda Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 What if the LORD tells you something different then what they said?Is this a trick question? All I can say is this lady is why I could make church work for me.
zionslight Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 I am a new member, but have been active and involved with like minded people for all my life. This is the first post I saw, and it is why I chose to join, as I studied this for about 7 years, and personally wrote and/or gathered over 500 pages in my own writing and own study on this very subject. I would love to respond, it will take me a bit as I am new and would like to look at some of the discussion boards. I did like the tone that people used towards each other, so I am glad to be a member here. I am an active member of this church, and hope I have some thoughts, knowledge and experience to share as I also glean from this forum. It is an enthralling time to live and it is very important to be ready for the light and knowledge being opened up to us in scripture and with each other. So nice to meet all of you...
JLHPROF Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 I am a new member, but have been active and involved with like minded people for all my life. This is the first post I saw, and it is why I chose to join, as I studied this for about 7 years, and personally wrote and/or gathered over 500 pages in my own writing and own study on this very subject. I would love to respond, it will take me a bit as I am new and would like to look at some of the discussion boards. I did like the tone that people used towards each other, so I am glad to be a member here. I am an active member of this church, and hope I have some thoughts, knowledge and experience to share as I also glean from this forum. It is an enthralling time to live and it is very important to be ready for the light and knowledge being opened up to us in scripture and with each other. So nice to meet all of you... Nice to meet you too.If you'd like to introduce yourself in any more depth the Social Hall is the best place for that.As for this thread, what is your position on polygamy as practiced by Joseph and his contemporaries?
zionslight Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Ok dumb question how do I meet in the social hall. That is funny because I am known to be out in the hall. Is this the chat section?
JLHPROF Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Ok dumb question how do I meet in the social hall. That is funny because I am known to be out in the hall. Is this the chat section? You are posting in "General Discussions" under a topic. If you go to the top and go to the forums menu you will see Social Hall as an option like General Discussions.If you choose social hall you will be able to start a thread introducing yourself.
Coreyb Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) What a great question VGJ! Sorry I am coming late to the discussion. First let me say that you really must learn a lot more about the topic of plural marriage before doing anything drastic. I would suggest, along with the Brian Hales books/website already recommended, that you read Mormon Polygamy: A History by Richard Van Wagoner and More Wives Than One: Transformation of the Mormon Marriage System by Kathryn M. Daynes. When it comes to Polygamy being true, of God, a commandment, or being necessary for exaltation it all comes down to who you trust as an oracle of God, and how you interpret what they said/wrote. From Joseph Smith we have a revelation that is now section 132 of the D&C. This revelation says that polygamy would be restored as a restoration of all things, though as far as I can tell, the only people specifically commanded to practice it are Joseph and Emma. It does however say that God can give multiple wives to a man, or that a man may desire and take multiple wives himself. Some, like BookofMormonLuvr apparently dont accept this revelation. Brigham Young did make many statements about plural marriage being essential to future Godhood, but like others have said, he also seems to have made statements allowing for only the belief in the doctrine to be sufficient. Unfortunately, Brigham did not write many revelations in the way Joseph Smith did. His revelatory style consisted primarily of public pronouncements in sermons, and comments in private council meetings, making it harder for a person to determine when God is speaking versus when Brigham is speaking IMO. It is also important to remember that John Taylor also wrote revelations in the way Joseph did, and the most notorious one (the 1886 revelation) has God explaining that polygamy is indeed an eternal law and that he cannot revoke it, even in light of the incredible prosecution and persecution the saints were under for the practice by the United States government. Then we get to Wilford Woodruff and the manifesto. Many will tell you that God spoke to president woodruff, ended the practice, it was accepted by the Church, and we have been monogamists ever since. This is simply not the case. Most church leaders at the time interpreted the manifesto to be a political smokescreen to get the government off the church's back. Almost nobody believed it to be a revelation ending the practice indefinitely everywhere in the world. Many Apostles took plural wives after the Manifesto, and there is evidence that Wilford Woodruff himself took a plural wife after as well. Many still believed polygamy to be the command of the Lord, and it took two more Manifestos and a later policy of excommunicating any polygamists to finally end the practice in the Church. It seems to me that these harsh measures were only implemented because the Church was put on trial by the United States in order to get Reed Smoot (an apostle) as a congressman from Utah. IMO, The Church traded the practice of Polygamy in for Utah's statehood, greater political representation in Washington, and greater respect from Americans and Europeans. It should be noted that the only documents regarding latter day polygamy that have been accepted by the Church as cannon are the 1843 revelation to Joseph Smith (D&C 132), and the Woodruff manifesto (OD 1). Also, many claim the manifesto was not even written by Woodruff, but by George Q. Cannon, Charles Penrose and others. Really though, the only thing to do is read the revelations and sermons for yourself, study the context of each, and decide for yourself (hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit) what you believe Gods will really is regarding Polygamy. Like others said "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". I will say though, the more I have studied the subject, the more perplexing the question has become. Edited September 1, 2014 by Coreyb 1
K-2 Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 It should be noted that the only documents regarding latter day polygamy that have been accepted by the Church as cannon are the 1843 revelation to Joseph Smith (D&C 132), and the Woodruff manifesto (OD 1).John Taylor's October 13, 1882 revelation, was published as Section 137 in German, Danish and Swedish editions of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1928. Richard Holzapfel wrote about this revelation in the book Champion of Liberty: John Taylor that:"In addition to announcing new Church leaders, the revelation also informed Seymour Young that he must 'conform to [God’s] law, for it is not meet that men who will not abide my law shall preside over my Priesthood.' President Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, President of the Twelve, explained the meaning of the revelation in a meeting held on October 14, just a day after the revelation was received. President Taylor said, 'A man obeying a lower Law is not qualified to preside over those who keep a higher Law.' President Woodruff added, 'The leading men of Israel who are presiding over Stakes will have to obey the Law of Abraham or they will have to Stop.' ” 3
Storm Rider Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 You've written almost 4,500 posts on this board, but don't seem to have read a single one posted by others because there is not a single thread on this board in which someone doesn't say that we should put our faith in church leaders. I wish I had a nickel for every time I read, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38). In fact, within the last day or so, someone started a thread to make it perfectly clear that they do not believe that BY was mistaken about the Adam-God doctrine. In thread after thread, members have argued that the Church leaders were right in implementing the priesthood and temple restrictions against blacks, even after the Church itself has retracted all of its previous explanations for the policy. Therefore, rather than admitting that Church leaders could have been WRONG, they argue that Church leaders stumbled upon the "right" answer (denying blessings to blacks) even if all of their justifications later proved false. Kate Kelly has been raked over the coals REPEATEDLY because she had the temerity to challenge the church's CURRENT stance on the ordination of women. And people like me are constantly rebuffed for questioning our CURRENT church policies on SSM and other social issues. The constant refrain from Team Church is almost always, "God is in charge of His Church and therefore, the prophets are speaking for HF." At the core of just about every discussion on this board is the question, "Do we dare question the prophets?" So please forgive those of us who entertain the "ridiculous notion" that many Mormons put their faith in prophets "who will never lead the Church astray." Where could we have possibly gotten such a ridiculous idea? You would slant the retelling of facts would you just to support your cause(s) celebre?!? I am also one of those that has their relationship with the divine based first and last with our Heavenly Father. Leaders may be instruments in his hands, but they must work out their own salvation in the exact same manner every other child of God must. The reason I question Ms. KK and all those like her is that her process was one based upon lies, distortion, innuendo, pride, and selfishness. I don't know her personally and she is not the type of person I would spend time with socially and I suspect that the feeling would be mutual. You question everything, repeatedly. You seldom, if ever, have anything inspirational, hopeful, virtuous, or praiseworthy to share. You begin by attempting to destroy faith and you always end in the same position. Why would anyone benefit from reading your comments? How am I benefited from listening to you? How is my relationship with God strengthened by what you discuss on this Board? It is not that you have the temerity to question church leaders ad nauseum, but that you never stop or change your shtick. 1
Alan Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 OK, I'm gonna have to say my piece. Can't let the questioner think the "Joseph was a polygamist" brigade have the only voice on the subject. There are some of us in the church, admittedly a small number, who do not believe Joseph had any plural wives. He certainly announced in a public statement shortly before his death that he did not practice polygamy and never had and could prove anyone who said otherwise to be liars and perjurers.I for one choose to believe him, others don't; but I think I'm right. 1
sunstoned Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 You've written almost 4,500 posts on this board, but don't seem to have read a single one posted by others because there is not a single thread on this board in which someone doesn't say that we should put our faith in church leaders. I wish I had a nickel for every time I read, "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” (D&C 1:38). In fact, within the last day or so, someone started a thread to make it perfectly clear that they do not believe that BY was mistaken about the Adam-God doctrine. In thread after thread, members have argued that the Church leaders were right in implementing the priesthood and temple restrictions against blacks, even after the Church itself has retracted all of its previous explanations for the policy. Therefore, rather than admitting that Church leaders could have been WRONG, they argue that Church leaders stumbled upon the "right" answer (denying blessings to blacks) even if all of their justifications later proved false. Kate Kelly has been raked over the coals REPEATEDLY because she had the temerity to challenge the church's CURRENT stance on the ordination of women. And people like me are constantly rebuffed for questioning our CURRENT church policies on SSM and other social issues. The constant refrain from Team Church is almost always, "God is in charge of His Church and therefore, the prophets are speaking for HF." At the core of just about every discussion on this board is the question, "Do we dare question the prophets?" So please forgive those of us who entertain the "ridiculous notion" that many Mormons put their faith in prophets "who will never lead the Church astray." Where could we have possibly gotten such a ridiculous idea?+1000
mormonnewb Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 You question everything, repeatedly. You seldom, if ever, have anything inspirational, hopeful, virtuous, or praiseworthy to share. You begin by attempting to destroy faith and you always end in the same position. Why would anyone benefit from reading your comments? How am I benefited from listening to you? How is my relationship with God strengthened by what you discuss on this Board? It is not that you have the temerity to question church leaders ad nauseum, but that you never stop or change your shtick. I'm attempting to destroy faith in WHOM? I have a shiny new nickel for you if you can point to a SINGLE post where I have ever questioned the atonement of Christ or any SINGLE teaching of the NT. What I do question is how we have made our leaders into demigods -- all-seeing oracles who perfectly divine the will of Almighty God. Or in regards to past prophets, I question our fairy tale narratives that they were saints who cut down cherry trees but couldn't tell a lie (although perhaps I'm confusing them with someone else on that score). And, by the way, that is ALL I question. I don't lodge personal attacks against the Brethren and claim that Elder So-and-So hates puppies or Elder This-and-That could use a Tic-Tac. I simply question the wisdom of certain Church policies or teachings. How that strengthens YOUR relationship with HF? I can't say for sure. What it does for ME is serve as a reminder that I have an unmitigated relationship with my Lord and Savior. It reminds me that I have direct access to the throne of grace through the Holy Spirit and that maybe, just maybe, I should rely on that direct communication more heavily than on our ever-changing and not always easy to define doctrine. As for changing my "schtick," why should I? Do you change yours? Are you sometimes not faithful to the Brethren? Are you sometimes not faithful to your spouse? Just to "switch things up"? Of course not. As Alexander Pope once said, "Act well your part, there all the honor lies." My part is not to attack people because they don't know what they haven't been taught by the Church with regards to polygamy. I leave that to others. My part is not to attack people who question current or past church doctrines/policies. There are MANY people better qualified to do that. My part is to play the fool ... a part for which I am PERFECTLY suited. Why would I do ANYTHING else?
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 OK, I'm gonna have to say my piece. Can't let the questioner think the "Joseph was a polygamist" brigade have the only voice on the subject. There are some of us in the church, admittedly a small number, who do not believe Joseph had any plural wives. He certainly announced in a public statement shortly before his death that he did not practice polygamy and never had and could prove anyone who said otherwise to be liars and perjurers.I for one choose to believe him, others don't; but I think I'm right. 2013 Seminary Manual "However, by 1841 the Prophet obeyed the commandment, and over the next three years he married additional wives in accordance with the Lord’s commands. The Prophet Joseph Smith’s obedience to the Lord’s commandment to practice plural marriage was a trial of faith for him and his wife Emma, whom he loved dearly"https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014/section-6/home-study-lesson-doctrine-and-covenants-129-132-unit-28?lang=eng Read http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/faq/polygamy-denials/
Alan Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 For some reason my computer has decided not to let me include a previous poster's quote in my response. MormonFree Thinker,I read all that stuff, and much, much more besides. Reliable contemporary evidence just isn't there, no matter how much people want it to be. I have looked at the evidence on both sides of the argument and have come to the opinion that he was not a polygamist. There are others in the church who also hold this view, though most don't.Certainly a seminary manual isn't going to persuade me otherwise!
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) I'm a little shocked right now. Why? It is just psychological. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith or Brigham Young did something horrible. I also found out that Joseph Smith was being sealed to many wives including a 14 year old a couple Helen continued to lived with her parents. a couple 16 year olds Fanny Alger was at least 16 years old when she married Joseph Smith, scholars do not know the exact age. including married women as well. Joseph Smith got sealed to married women with the permission of their husbands. Scholars do not know a lot about that ordinance. It was a different ordinance, we simply do not know what is going to happen in heaven. Maybe Joseph Smith married them for and in favor of their husbands, like a baptism for the death ordinance. The husbands didn't have to be members of the church. And why don't we still practice it today if it's necessary? Just because the country makes it illegal and all of a sudden a revelation comes saying the church will no longer practice it. Coincidence or depriving the biggest chance at exaltation just because of a law? Polygamy was always illegal in the USA. Polygamy was necessary 180 years ago, but not anymore You need to read http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Polygamyhttp://josephsmithspolygamy.org/ Edited September 1, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Certainly a seminary manual isn't going to persuade me otherwise! Alexander, Thomas G. Review of Mormon Polygamy: A History, by Richard S. Van Wagoner. BYU Studies 32 (Winter & Spring 1992):295-298.Bachman, Danel W. "A Study of the Mormon Practice of Plural Marriage before the Death of Joseph Smith." M.A. thesis, Purdue University, 1975.Bashore, Melvin L. "Life Behind Bars: Mormon Cohabs of the 180s." Utah Historical Quarterly 47 (Winter 1979):22-41. Bean, Kent R. "Creators Mark V. Olsen and Will Scheffer, Big Love, season 1 (2006) and season 2 (2007)." BYU Studies 47:2 (2008):183-186.Bennion, Lowell ("Ben"). "The Incidence of Mormon Polygamy in 1880: 'Dixie' versus Davis Stake." Journal of Mormon History 11 (1984):27-42.
Alan Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 There's little point in referring studies, papers and book to me MormonFree Thinker. I've been through them all (I believe) and still hold to my expressed views.I believe that Joseph was sealed to a number of people, but not married to them. The two are not the same thing. As for the link you gave to the "polygamy denials" site, I have to say that I've never read such a load of old tosh in my life!
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) I believe that Joseph was sealed to a number of people, but not married to them. The two are not the same thing. Fair enough, because there is no conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with his wives, but there is evidence. "There is good evidence of a conjugal relationship with Almira Johnson, Melissa Lott, Emily Partridge, and Eliza R. Snow. It is also reasonable to include Eliza Partridge, Maria Lawrence, and Sarah Lawrence. The evidence for their inclusion is persuasive, though they are not named specifically"http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/20/2/S00004-5176a3a1d58f84Smith.pdf Edited September 1, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 As for the link you gave to the "polygamy denials" site, I have to say that I've never read such a load of old tosh in my life! but he is a scholar
SmileyMcGee Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 I think you hit the nail on the head there. I think that is a problem a lot of struggling members have. They are too quick to get hung up on difficult issues when they only have a shallow understanding of them.There's an implication in your statement that I find very interesting: that if members had a deeper understanding of difficult issues they would not be hung up. While I agree that such a thing can happen with certain difficult topics, I don't know that more understanding of some things really causes greater acceptance. My feeling is that the church leadership wishes certain aspects of our history would just go away and not be spoken of because they are just too difficult. 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 My feeling is that the church leadership wishes certain aspects of our history would just go away and not be spoken of because they are just too difficult. No, it is because most people do not understand history. In my opinion, the most difficult issues have nothing to do with history or science.
Senator Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) Currenty, the church treats its' polygamous past as the red-headed stepchild. I suspect once polygamy is legalized and stigmas softened, that we will begin to see lessons in our manuals praising the faithful trials endured by our forefathers and mothers that lived the commandment. Edited September 1, 2014 by Senator
Guest Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 The only problems I have with Mormon-style polygamy are that it's religiously based and unequal along gender lines. I prefer modern polyamory.Sad you would want such...insulting to be frank.
JLHPROF Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 I believe that Joseph was sealed to a number of people, but not married to them. The two are not the same thing. And yet proponents of this theory have yet to differentiate between a temple marriage and a temple sealing of a man and a woman.Pretty sure when Joseph was "sealed" to these women they were pronounced husband and wife just as I was when I was sealed to my wife.
Recommended Posts