On Despising Apostate Sanctimony

[Pahoran]

I've stated this before and I will keep repeating it, it is church doctrine that moral standards don't change over time or due to societal acceptance/disapproval.  

 

 

It's perfectly acceptable to engage in premarital relations and is in fact practiced by the vast majority of the world's population today. Does that then make it acceptable before God?  Why is it an unchanging moral standard to not get past 2nd base before marriage, talk dirty, wear modest clothing, etc. but when it comes to 38 year old men marrying 14 year old girls it's a moral standard that can change with societal acceptance?

 

Marriage ages are not a revealed principle, but part of a set of social mores that can and do change over time.

 

Indeed revealed moral principles do not change.  Current social mores do.

 

The Law of Chastity is a revealed moral principle.  Marriage ages are not.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[sethpayne]

To this I say a big "so what?"

People tried to live a commandment of God and suffered persecution.  So what else is new.

The argument that plural marriage led to serious persecution so it must be bad doesn't hold a ounce of truth.  Persecution, sacrifice, hatred of the world, etc are requirements.  If they stop it is due to apostasy.

 

So what?  I wish I could be so flippant about murder and the tyrannical and unjust imprisonment of innocent men.

 

If these things are requirements then the vast majority of us are headed straight to hell because as LDS today, we live pretty darn good lives.  Why?  Because President Woodruff had the wisdom to abandon the practice of polygamy.  We can discuss whether or not the practice was right or wrong but you can't deny the tremendous prosperity the Saints experienced as a direct result of abandoning plural marriage.

[JLHPROF]

So what?  I wish I could be so flippant about murder and the tyrannical and unjust imprisonment of innocent men.

 

Not flippant about it happening.  It was sad.  Just like the Christians being sent to the Lions.  Just like the victims at Hauns Mill.  Just like Mormon and Moroni fleeing for their lives as the last of their people.

Persecution goes along with righteousness.  Prosperity goes along with apostasy.

 

 

 

If these things are requirements then the vast majority of us are headed straight to hell because as LDS today, we live pretty darn good lives.  Why?  Because President Woodruff had the wisdom to abandon the practice of polygamy.  We can discuss whether or not the practice was right or wrong but you can't deny the tremendous prosperity the Saints experienced as a direct result of abandoning plural marriage.

 

I cannot deny the prosperity.  Why would I?  It was prophecied and warned against:

 

"The worst fear that I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and his people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution, and be true. But my greater fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth; and yet they have to be tried with riches, for they will become the richest people on this earth. "(Brigham Young: The Man and His Work, 4th ed., p.126-129)

 

"Do you know what peace and prosperity can do to a people—It can put them to sleep.  The Book of Mormon warned us of how [satan], in the last days, would lead us away carefully down to hell.  The Lord has on the earth some potential spiritual giants whom He saved for some six thousand years to help bear off the Kingdom triumphantly, and the devil is trying to put them to sleep." Ezra Taft Benson

 

"Mormonism’ is becoming quite popular.” Yes, and so are hell and the works of the devil.  When “Mormonism” finds favor with the wicked in this land, it will have gone into the shade; but until the power of the Priesthood is gone, “Mormonism” will never become popular with the wicked."

and “And when the spirit of persecution, the spirit of hatred, or wrath, and malice ceases in the world against this people, it will be the time that this people have apostatized and joined hands with the wicked, and never until then; which I pray may never come.”

Brigham Young JD 4:37-38

 

"I look at this, and I am satisfied that it will not do for the Lord to make this people popular. Why? Because all hell would want to be in the church. The people must be kept where the finger of scorn can be pointed at them." Brigham Young JD 12:272

[Calm]

If no sex was involved and these were simply dynastic in nature, why all the secrecy? There is zero reason for secrecy in purely dynastic sealings. If you are getting sealed to a fourteen year old girl or another man's wife, why not make it perfectly clear to all parties involved (Emma, husbands, parents) that it will not involve relations?

Or better yet, why not completely avoid the very appearance of evil and create your dynastic sealing with the husband or father instead of married women and young girls?

Apparently law of adoption started in 1846, which is after the polyandrous sealings and after Joseph's death, so they may have followed that reasoning.

The dynastic sealings with Helen and others who were also young likely IMO were intended to become full marriages when she was older as was done in Utah so pointing out it wasn't sexual now but would be later doesnt seem helpful.

Edited November 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

We had a young lady over a few night ago, I figured she was in college...maybe if she looked old for her age, senior high school. I found out today she was a ninth grader. It wasn't only her looks, it was her poise and speech, there was nothing childish about her.

I am not in anyway claiming that means it is okay for her to go out and get married, just using her as an example that if one wasn't aware of brain development going on until mid twenties and lived in a society where childhood was limited and children and youth were trained to assume adult roles a few years after puberty when their physical bodies are outwardly fully developed and "adult" so that they not only looked like adults but were acting like adults in teaching school and other such things, a member of that society would look on marriage with late teens at least as acceptable because it involved in their view an adult woman. It is not about some magic absolute number..,if a woman has the mental and emotional age of a 4 year old and she is 45 in years is it okay in our view for her to be married to a man who expected of her the same relationship as he would with a typical 45 year old woman including having children and caring for them?

If a society has a capable process to produce emotionally and financially mature adults such that they could leave home if needed and function successfully on their own, should we denigrate them as child abusers for encouraging their youth to do just that because we have created a society where many 30 year olds are incapable of taking care of themselves, being emotionally and financially mature, etc. Because we have chosen to prolong childhood because we had the resources that allow us to do so and it keeps them from entering the job market and raising unemployment etc. (though I wonder if the research shows we are doing our kids a favour in terms of feeling happy in their lives and strong senses of purpose and connection in their lives), does that mean they were wrong? Were their kids just faking maturity or did the parents not really care but kick them out no matter what?

For those concerned about the power differential between an older man and a teen female, I suspect the power differential between men and women ingeneral was so significant waiting a few years would make little difference. Plural marriage giving women a wider range of options including leaving an unsatisfying marriage quite easily and without the extreme stigma associated with it outside of Utah eventually led to a more equal power standing for a time, though women still needed marriage or a well off father in the vast majority of cases and spinsterhood meant poverty for most.

Check out the history of marital rape laws if you want to see a real power differential.

Married women were just barely getting the right to hold property in their own name rather than anything they owned or earned automatically becoming the husband's

Edited November 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[rodheadlee]

Good questions Omni. And I'll add that Section 132 doesn't mention for dynastic reasons. And interesting that the D&C 132 was added shortly after he takes Helen as a wife. Btw, it wasn't common at all to have young wives, look at other members in Smith's family they were older.

My wife was 17, my mom was 17, it's more common than you think.

[stemelbow]

We had a young lady over a few night ago, I figured she was in college...maybe if she looked old for her age, senior high school. I found out today she was a ninth grader. It wasn't only her looks, it was her poise and speech, there was nothing childish about her.

I am not in anyway claiming that means it is okay for her to go out and get married, just using her as an example that if one wasn't aware of brain development going on until mid twenties and lived in a society where childhood was limited and children and youth were trained to assume adult roles a few years after puberty when their physical bodies are outwardly fully developed and "adult" so that they not only looked like adults but were acting like adults in teaching school and other such things, a member of that society would look on marriage with late teens at least as acceptable because it involved in their view an adult woman. It is not about some magic absolute number..,if a woman has the mental and emotional age of a 4 year old and she is 45 in years is it okay in our view for her to be married to a man who expected of her the same relationship as he would with a typical 45 year old woman including having children and caring for them?

If a society has a capable process to produce emotionally and financially mature adults such that they could leave home if needed and function successfully on their own, should we denigrate them as child abusers for encouraging their youth to do just that because we have created a society where many 30 year olds are incapable of taking care of themselves, being emotionally and financially mature, etc. Because we have chosen to prolong childhood because we had the resources that allow us to do so and it keeps them from entering the job market and raising unemployment etc. (though I wonder if the research shows we are doing our kids a favour in terms of feeling happy in their lives and strong senses of purpose and connection in their lives), does that mean they were wrong? Were their kids just faking maturity or did the parents not really care but kick them out no matter what?

For those concerned about the power differential between an older man and a teen female, I suspect the power differential between men and women ingeneral was so significant waiting a few years would make little difference. Plural marriage giving women a wider range of options including leaving an unsatisfying marriage quite easily and without the extreme stigma associated with it outside of Utah eventually led to a more equal power standing for a time, though women still needed marriage or a well off father in the vast majority of cases and spinsterhood meant poverty for most.

Check out the history of marital rape laws if you want to see a real power differential.

Married women were just barely getting the right to hold property in their own name rather than anything they owned or earned automatically becoming the husband's

The age of Helen for instance is alarming in and of itself. The bigger issue, of course, is that Joseph was 20+years older than she. Even if you think a young lady is older than she is there really is no explanation that would justify a teenager marrying someone 20 years older, no?

[rodheadlee]

So her being a hypocrite and only pretending to love the church is just your opinion.  Got it.  Is that the way we talk about people on these boards?  I thought we'd rise above that here.

 

Do you believe it's possible to love the Church, to believe in the restoration and Joseph Smith's role as prophet while still believing that he was mistaken in his practice of polygamy?

 

I do.

No.

[rockpond]

No.

 

Interesting.  But that makes sense given your other posts.

[JLHPROF]

The age of Helen for instance is alarming in and of itself. The bigger issue, of course, is that Joseph was 20+years older than she. Even if you think a young lady is older than she is there really is no explanation that would justify a teenager marrying someone 20 years older, no?

 

The explanation has already been provided in this thread.

Teenagers marrying men in their 30s was NOT considered abnormal at the time, and there is certainly no scriptural commandment against it.

The ONLY problem we have with a man in his 30s marrying a teenager is that it offends our sensibilities of the last 100 years.  It has no sin or basis beyond our current hangups.

[The Nehor]

The age of Helen for instance is alarming in and of itself. The bigger issue, of course, is that Joseph was 20+years older than she. Even if you think a young lady is older than she is there really is no explanation that would justify a teenager marrying someone 20 years older, no?

It is strongly suspected that the parents of the Savior had a similar age gap and were similar ages.

[stemelbow]

The explanation has already been provided in this thread.

Teenagers marrying men in their 30s was NOT considered abnormal at the time, and there is certainly no scriptural commandment against it.

Sure it was abnormal. Are you saying it was normal?

The ONLY problem we have with a man in his 30s marrying a teenager is that it offends our sensibilities of the last 100 years.  It has no sin or basis beyond our current hangups.

Well, that, and it's pretty unhealthy in practice, at least for the teenager and perhaps for the man as well.

[stemelbow]

It is strongly suspected that the parents of the Savior had a similar age gap and were similar ages.

Then it's weakly suspected that they weren't. Did Joseph, Mary's betrothed, have additional wives? Because this whole wanting it to sound "normal" and "ok" by drawing parallels leaves out part of the story each time.

[The Nehor]

Then it's weakly suspected that they weren't. Did Joseph, Mary's betrothed, have additional wives? Because this whole wanting it to sound "normal" and "ok" by drawing parallels leaves out part of the story each time.

Of course it does. I am not sure whether modern culture has it right. We delay adulthood for so long that adolescents (a modern concept itself) are treated like children when their bodies and minds are screaming that they are adults.

[JLHPROF]

Then it's weakly suspected that they weren't. Did Joseph, Mary's betrothed, have additional wives? Because this whole wanting it to sound "normal" and "ok" by drawing parallels leaves out part of the story each time.

 

 

 

Joseph, the Husband of Mary: A Polygamist

The Jews were polygamist like many other Oriental peoples. Men of wealth and nobility married several wives and this custom was also followed by men of the poorer classes. In some cases the Jewish law made it mandatory. For instance, if a brother should die before leaving a wife and no posterity, his brother must mate her and bring a child to his deceased brother. Thus, even those who were content with one wife were often forced by circumstances to take another.

The family unity of Easterners is centered in the father. The mother’s side is unimportant. In a family there is only one father, many mothers and the children of all the mothers. In every case, in biblical genealogies, the name of the mother in polygamous families is given with that of her son. This fact explains why the name of the mother is often mentioned in connection with the kings of Israel and Judah. Even today in many Eastern countries where polygamy is still practiced, whenever a son is mentioned, reference is made to his mother as the one who gave birth to him, to distinguish her from other mothers of the family.

There is no doubt that Joseph had other wives. Matthew traces the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham to Joseph. The reference to Mary is to show that Jesus was born of her and not one of the other wives of Joseph. The brothers and sisters of Jesus who are mentioned in the Gospels were not Mary’s children, but children of Joseph by other wives. If they had been the children of Mary, Jesus being the eldest son would have asked them to take care of her. Instead, Jesus placed His mother in the care of John.

George M. Lamsa,

Ethnologist, Aramaic Language Expert

Gospel Light: Comments on the Teachings of Jesus

(compiled and adapted from pages 5, 6, 97, 98, 129)

A.J. Holman, Bible Publishers, 1939

 

http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/mary-a-teenage-bride-and-mother

“How old was Mary (the mother of Jesus) when she became pregnant?” & “How old was Mary when she gave birth to our Lord Jesus, the Christ?”

Thousands of paintings, drawings, statues, and even “living manger scenes” portray Mary, Jesus’ mother, at the time of Jesus’ birth. However, most of them portray her as a young woman in her 20’s. To be sure, Mary was a remarkable woman. For one thing, she truly understood what it meant to sacrifice for the sake of doing God’s will, an example her son, Jesus, noted and would later follow. For example, apparently no one at that time, including she herself, was expecting the Messiah to be born of a virgin. This is why she asked the angel Gabriel how she was going to bear the Messiah when she was not married and sexually active (Luke 1:34), why Joseph decided to divorce her, and why, years later, the religious leaders still thought that Jesus was a ******* child, born of fornication (John 8:41 – KJV). She knew that accepting pregnancy from God would cause turmoil and pain to her and her loved ones, but she accepted God’s plan for her life, saying, “…Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word…”(Luke 1:38 – ESV [1]).

One very remarkable thing about Mary is that she would almost certainly have been 12-14 years old when the angel Gabriel appeared to her. We know this because the common custom at that time was for girls to marry early, at that age. The Bible never gives Mary’s age when she got pregnant or gave birth to Jesus, and that is because when something happened that was common in the culture, nothing was said about it. We write the same way today, leaving out any details that everyone knows by custom and culture. If we read in the newspaper that a thief drove down the road for miles while being chased by police, we do not think, “Drove? What is ‘drove?’ I wonder how he got down the road all that distance?” We all know what “drove down the road” means, so we exclude the details when we write about it.

Similarly, if I tell someone, “I called Dan and talked with him,” it is clear from our culture that I called on a telephone, even though I do not say it. Many years ago I was teaching my kids the Bible, and I read them that Deborah the prophetess “called Barak” (Judg. 4:6 – KJV). My little daughter interrupted me and wanted to know Barak’s phone number. Her comment made sense given her understanding of custom and culture.

In ancient Israel, girls married in their teens, even early teens. [2] For Mary to be betrothed (engaged) but not yet formally married, yet old enough to have and nurse the Messiah, she would have been 12-14. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible points out, “It appears that both boys and girls were married very young. Later [after the New Testament period] the rabbis fixed the minimum age for marriage at twelve for girls and thirteen for boys.” [3]

Some customs of biblical Palestine continued through the centuries, and after her trip to the Near East around 1910, Alma White commented on the age of marriage in Palestine, “A girl is usually married in her twelfth or thirteenth year, and sometimes as early as her tenth year.” [4] W. M. Thompson, a missionary in the Middle East for some 30 years, attests to the same thing. [5] James Neil points out that everyone married, because they felt obligated to fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, and that, “Girls are ‘given in marriage’ at eleven or twelve years of age, though this is not the limit. They are frequently married as young as nine….” [6]

Marrying young was the custom in many ancient cultures. Two cultures that had particular influence on the biblical world were the Greeks and Romans. Isomachus, a character in the Greek writer Xenophon’s Oeconomics, mentions that when he married his wife, she was not yet fifteen. [7] Roman girls also married very young, sometimes even before puberty. [8]

Women married early because it was they who bore the children who continued the family line and provided economic strength and physical protection for the family, and it was generally desirable to have many children. Furthermore, lots of children died young, and many women died in childbirth. We know from Matthew and Luke that Mary was a virgin, and had never been married before, so her marriage age would have been set by common custom. Also, as was common, Mary had a large family, with at least seven children. Her male children were Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas (Matt. 13:55), and she had at least two daughters, for Jesus had “sisters” as well as brothers (Matt. 13:55 and 56). [9]

Boys also married early, but somewhat later than girls. Jewish boys were expected to marry at sixteen or seventeen. [10] Similarly, in the Roman world, the age at which a Roman boy discarded the white toga with a red border, the symbol of youth, and wore the pure white toga of a Roman man and citizen, was generally between 14 and 17. [11] Just how old Joseph was when he married Mary is not as easily determined as Mary’s age, because although men customarily married in their mid to late teens, for a number of reasons they sometimes married later.

It is often assumed that Joseph married late in his life, because it is almost certain that he had died by the time Jesus started his ministry. We draw this conclusion from a number of biblical records in which Joseph was conspicuously absent, culturally speaking. One is when Jesus moved his headquarters to Capernaum his mother and brothers came, but not his father (John 2:12). Even more significant is that while on the Cross, Jesus instructed the Apostle John to take care of his mother and told Mary to treat John as a son, which would never have occurred had Joseph been alive (John 19:26 and 27). However, the fact that Joseph was dead by the time Jesus was 30 does not necessarily mean that Joseph was a much older man when he married Mary, because many people died young from accidents or disease.

If we are going to paint a picture of the birth of Christ, or cast a woman for a living nativity scene, there is some room for interpretation, but if we want to show Mary as she actually was, having a girl of twelve to fourteen as an actor or model would be the most proper thing to do.

 

So there you go.  The Mother of our Lord and Savior who gave birth to the only begotten son of God was about 14 and married to a polygamist who may have been significantly older.

If God has no problem with it, perhaps we of the last 100 years need to get over it too.

Edited November 6, 2014 by JLHPROF

[TOmNossor]

 

I completely agree that plural marriage, for Joseph, was not primarily about sex. Given the large number of women involved, it appears that forging familial connections and securing for himself and others "crowns of eternal lives in the eternal worlds" took precedence over "raising up seed" in Joseph's mind.

 

I do not think Joseph Smith came up with polygamy simply to satisfy a raging libido.The issue is a lot more complicated than that. As B. Carmon Hardy noted many years ago, "the problem of distinguishing between sexual interest and religious inspiration in the case of Joseph Smith and his associates is extraordinarily complex. Apart from rumors of his attraction to women, there is implication in Joseph's reported claim to have seen, long before he married them, all his wives in vision. And one need not be a psychoanalyst to recognize symbolism in Joseph's claim that an angel appeared to him, sword drawn, commanding activity. His advice to William Clayton that, so far as additional wives were concerned, Clayton had a right to all he could get, is also telling. . . . And, despite insistence that accepting polygamy was a moral trial, one cannot help agreeing with Jan Shipps's observation that, quite soon enough, many came to resemble children suddenly told that eating candy was good for them. This notwithstanding, Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine. . ." (Hardy, Solemn Covenant, 9).

I accept that Fanny Alger was a plural wife. But I also find it noteworthy that Fanny Alger was, by all accounts, very attractive, and that those who knew Joseph best—Emma, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris—all viewed the relationship as an extramarital affair. It wasn't as though none of them could imagine Joseph being capable of such a thing. Then there is the well-known (though possibly apocryphal) account of Eliza R. Snow, who, when asked "if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young," replied: "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that." This and the fact that Joseph's phrenological reports consistently recorded high scores for "amativeness" suggest to me that Joseph projected interest in the opposite sex.

 

I have no idea whether Joseph's libido factored into the introduction of polygamy or not. I allow the possibility that it did (albeit subconsciously). But I am equally open to the possibility that he pursued it for purely religious reasons. Either way, I believe that he believed that polygamy was divinely mandated.

Nevo,

I had recently been dialoguing with former LDS.  The position I was arguing against was that Joseph Smith was a fraud who invented polygamy for the purpose of satisfying his sexual desires.  Since the obvious reason for Joseph to invent polygamy was for the sex, this was a natural position for the non-believer to take.  But the fullness of the historical record evidenced against this apostate explanation for Joseph's polygamy IMO and therefore it is a weak position to take.  I still think this is a winning argument for the LDS.  Why other than for sex would a man who invented a religion invent polygamy?  And why if Joseph the fraud invented polygamy would we see as little sex as we see, see as much dynastic linking as we see, see conservative Christian folks stand by him and polygamy, see no polygamy for periods of time, see struggles with initiating and accepting, see ....

 

I think there is much strength in looking to Nauvoo polygamy and other evidence and witness of polygamy and finding very non-human motives in the teaching and practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith, and I prefer this.

 

That being said, I do not think the historical record leaves the view espoused by Mormonnewb off the table.  I suppose Dan Vogel could weave such a view into his "pious fraud" theory, but that would be even harder to defend than, "man who seeks and regularly finds God introducing something God would have preferred would not be part of His church, motivated (at least in part) by sexual desire."  The angel with the sword motivating the re-igniting polygamous marriages is a little tough to fit into this view, but perhaps not impossible.

 

I converted to the church later in life (well mid-20's) and was not ignorant of some of the problems.  I cannot remember struggling to come to grips with imperfect prophets; it was just something that didn't cause me much stress.  So if one day, "we spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world,” I will be happy to join Mormonnewb in believing polygamy was always a mistake (even in the Bible where the text says God gave plural wives to folks -one folk?- who already had a wife).

Charity, TOm

[Nevo]

Hi TOm,

 

I don't know what Joseph was up to with polygamy but I do think he undertook the practice in good faith (that is, I don't think it was some calculated ploy to engage in predatory sexual behavior). But I could say the same about David Koresh. So therein lies the problem. Personally, I have no confidence that polygamy was a divine commandment. It may have been. Certainly some good came of it (as well as a lot of heartache). But I question whether it was God's initiative or whether it was just one of those things that charismatic prophet types tend to do.^* But I am prone to question and doubt (and doubt my doubts). In any case, as always, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts here.

 

____________________________________

 

^* See, e.g., Lawrence Foster, "The Psychology of Religious Genius: Joseph Smith and the Origins of New Religious Movements," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26, no. 4 (1993): 1–22; "Sex and Prophetic Power: A Comparison of John Humphrey Noyes, Founder of the Oneida Community, with Joseph Smith, Jr., the Mormon Prophet," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 31, no. 4 (1998): 65–83; "The Psychology of Prophetic Charisma: New Approaches to Understanding Joseph Smith and the Development of Charismatic Leadership," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 36, no. 4 (2003): 1–14.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Nevo

[Tacenda]

Hi TOm,

 

I don't know what Joseph was up to with polygamy but I do think he undertook the practice in good faith (that is, I don't think it was some calculated ploy to engage in predatory sexual behavior). But I could say the same about David Koresh. So therein lies the problem. Personally, I have no confidence that polygamy was a divine commandment. It may have been. Certainly some good came of it (as well as a lot of heartache). But I question whether it was due to God's initiative or whether it was just one of those things that charismatic prophet types tend to do.^* But I am prone to question and doubt (and doubt my doubts). In any case, as always, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts here.

 

____________________________________

 

^* See, e.g., Lawrence Foster, "The Psychology of Religious Genius: Joseph Smith and the Origins of New Religious Movements," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 26, no. 4 (1993): 1–22; "Sex and Prophetic Power: A Comparison of John Humphrey Noyes, Founder of the Oneida Community, with Joseph Smith, Jr., the Mormon Prophet," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 31, no. 4 (1998): 65–83; "The Psychology of Prophetic Charisma: New Approaches to Understanding Joseph Smith and the Development of Charismatic Leadership," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 36, no. 4 (2003): 1–14.

If both you and Tom were women, I'll bet you'd know it wasn't a divine commandment, at least not divine to you.

[mormonnewb]

I converted to the church later in life (well mid-20's) and was not ignorant of some of the problems.  I cannot remember struggling to come to grips with imperfect prophets; it was just something that didn't cause me much stress.  So if one day, "we spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world,” I will be happy to join Mormonnewb in believing polygamy was always a mistake (even in the Bible where the text says God gave plural wives to folks -one folk?- who already had a wife).

Charity, TOm

 

Like you, I am not particular wed to my position here (Wed!  Get it?).  It just fits best into my view of young men in positions of power.  However, I can't rule out that JS was as extraordinary in his righteousness as he was in his ability to receive revelation.

 

And also, like you, I have not lost a moment of sleep over the matter.  I think that is one of the advantages of being an adult convert.  We haven't been conditioned to revere leadership.  In fact, I think we are only shocked if our leaders actually live up to the high standards that they should.  For example, as a Democrat (mostly), I was not the least bit shocked by Bill Clinton's transgressions with "that woman."  I was a little disappointed, but it fit into my aforementioned worldview.

 

It also fits into my SELF view.  I know me well enough to know that whatever JS may have done wrong, I would have done FAR worse.

[sheilauk]

If both you and Tom were women, I'll bet you'd know it wasn't a divine commandment, at least not divine to you.

why do you say that? Many times it has been pointed out that the women involved accepted it as a divine command to them. You seem to insist on colouring this with your own view of modern bad practice of polygamy. I'm a woman and I have no problem with consensual polygamy. I think, for me, it might even be preferable. I support much of what TOm and Nevo have said. I also don't believe Joseph Smith was nearly perfect, but I don't see him as licentious either. Edited November 6, 2014 by sheilauk

[halconero]

If both you and Tom were women, I'll bet you'd know it wasn't a divine commandment, at least not divine to you.

 

Oh come on, Tacenda. Are we really pulling out the gender card here? There are multiple examples on this very board of female posters who believe that polygyny was divine command, with some go further to include polyandry within that command. Within the Church a famous example of women defending polygyny was the fact that Utah was the second territory/state in the Union to extend the vote to women, famously due to the fact that women within Utah generally wanted to vote down anti polygamist legislation. It was the federal government of the US that stripped women in Utah of the right to vote because these same women generally supported the practice.

 

A more recent example, albeit outside the Church but within the parameters of Mormon movements, are some recent articles and blogs published by women and girls from my home town in Creston, British Columbia. There's a sizable polygamous community about 10-15 minutes out of town and many of the girls and boys from that community attended high school with me. A friend of mine, a young, modern looking, wonderful girl of about 23, just published an article defending the polygamy of her father. She contextualized her article within the marriage-rights movement, saying that her father had the right to love and marry as many women as would have him. 

 

On the flip side, the Republican party (created in an era where only men could really participate in party politics via voting and representation in congress) was created on a platform of stomping out both slavery and polygamy.

 

Am I irritated? Yes. The argument that men must obviously believe in polygamy while women must obviously be opposed smacks of fitting men to the same gender roles which assert that they are the lecherous, outwardly sexual sex while women are the weaker, lesser sex incapable of believing in such a practice. There have been thousands of women who have valiantly supported polygamy as a divine command, and an equal if not greater number of men who have voraciously opposed the practice.

[halconero]

For example, as a Democrat (mostly), I was not the least bit shocked by Bill Clinton's transgressions with "that woman."  I was a little disappointed, but it fit into my aforementioned worldview.

 

I'm glad that worldview recognizes Democrats for the adulteress heathens for what they are.

 

On second thought, might as well throw the Republicans in there too.

 

God Save the Queen.  

[Silhouette]

I'm one of those women that polygamy doesn't really bother. If there is to be polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom, that's fine with me.

My viewpoint is this: Either you'll accept it, and therefore go to the Celestial Kingdom, or you won't accept it, in which case you won't have to worry about it anyway because you won't be there anyway.

If it were reinstated before the millennium, I think the Church would be majorly persecuted again, but I'd do all I could to obey the commandment. That is assuming it WAS a commandment given in a revelation. I do not believe it would come just from the mind of a man, because The Lord has promised us that He will never allow the leaders of his Church to lead it's members astray.

[Silhouette]

I'm glad that worldview recognizes Democrats for the adulteress heathens for what they are.

On second thought, might as well throw the Republicans in there too.

God Save the Queen.

[ELF1024]

I'm one of those women that polygamy doesn't really bother. If there is to be polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom, that's fine with me.

My viewpoint is this: Either you'll accept it, and therefore go to the Celestial Kingdom, or you won't accept it, in which case you won't have to worry about it anyway because you won't be there anyway.

If it were reinstated before the millennium, I think the Church would be majorly persecuted again, but I'd do all I could to obey the commandment. That is assuming it WAS a commandment given in a revelation. I do not believe it would come just from the mind of a man, because The Lord has promised us that He will never allow the leaders of his Church to lead it's members astray.

 

I doubt my wife would ever accept it... and I'm more than good with that. I have a difficult enough time with the one wife I (still) have, and my ex-wife,  I really don't need more.

 

I really don't think the Church would come under that much condemnation for polygamy if they announced again. With the homosexuals now being able to do whatever they want, and the Cody Brown case, I figure that legalized bigamy is going to come about in a decade or two at most. They actually legalized marriages between uncles and nieces in NY State recently.

 

Perversions abound, bring out your kink!

Edited November 6, 2014 by ELF1024