Joseph Smith's Polygamy

[Teancum]

How true' Absolutely brilliant!

Can you honestly not see what a dangerous position this could be?

[Bobbieaware]

The poster said Joseph Smith kept polygamy hidden and lied about it because it would be casting Pearl's before swine. Since Joseph lied to Emma I asked if she was a swine. Maybe getting the context straight before you rant at me might be useful.

Give it a rest Bobbieware. Your posts are as predictible as you say mine are and are often some sort of testimony that because you know the Book of Mormom is true then everything Joseph Smith did is fine. You seem unable to put yourself in someone else's shoes as was demonstrated in your post earlier in this thread when I responded to anothe poster that current offshoot polygamist groups in the LDS tradition believe they aspire right and have revelation. You went on about how they comply have to be wrong and how it was clear 19th century polygamy was never meant to be long term because the church would not have grown. The hubris of your position as well as the number of back reading assumptions you made was simply amazing. Yet I decided not to comment till now and that only because of your post above. Certainly Brigham Young and his comtemporaries did not view polygamy as short term. You simply were wrong. An FLDS follower believes you are following currently a false prophet.

As to my post that seems to bother so much....Teddieware said there was no doubt that polygamy was a big Abrahamic test, Well I don't believe God, if there is a God is so cruel to intentionally test his creations in such a way. So yes there is reason to doubt it and yes to justify some of Smith's behavior like asking a man to give his wife up just to see if he is faithful is awful and abusive. Who was Joseph Smith to do such a thing? Why demand such obedience from a fellow man to his power position ? Yes I do have a problem with that as well as passing it off as ok due to some way God is testing us.

If you don't like my posts don't read them. I am not twisting your arm. If you don't like me and what I say ignore me. The interesting thing is I often don't agree with you but I actually can and so respect your own views and where you are at and why. apparently you can't do the same for others.

Last of all i,don't view everything associated with the LDS gospel as tripe. There is much I quite like. So once again you are blatantly wrong about me and what I think.

Do you believe God was cruel and sadistic when he required his son -- against his righteous son's fondest desires -- to take upon himself infinite and eternal suffering that caused him to descend below all things in fathomable agony of body, mind and spirit?

Edited August 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[carbon dioxide]

God commanded Adam and Eve to Multiply and replenish the earth. where are Adam's extra wives?

I hardly think that Genesis is a biography of the life of Adam.  If he lived 930 years, then 99.9% of his life we have no account for.  Perhaps Adam did have more than one wife after he left the garden. 

[Bobbieaware]

Can you honestly not see what a dangerous position this could be?

What in the world is so dangerous about being humble enough to admit that we're all spiritually blind and ignorant to one degree or another?

[carbon dioxide]

So was Emma one of the swine Joseph needed to hide his practice from?

Here is how I approach the issue.  Was Emma trying to help Joseph follow God and his command to practice polygamy or was she holding him back.  If she was trying to help Joseph with the practice and he withheld things from Emma, he was wrong.  If Emma was a 500 pound ball and chain keeping him back, he had to do what he had to do. Perhaps Joseph could have made some better choice. Perhaps Emma could have been a little more supportive. 

[jkwilliams]

Can you honestly not see what a dangerous position this could be?

 

No kidding. "You said no, so I'm going to do what I want, and you no longer have any right to know what I'm doing behind your back." Holy crap, how is that brilliant in any sense? 

[Teancum]

No kidding. "You said no, so I'm going to do what I want, and you no longer have any right to know what I'm doing behind your back." Holy crap, how is that brilliant in any sense?

All sorts of atrocities big and small have been done in the name of religion historically as well currently based on this Philosphy that JL proposes here. The believer says to the doubter that essentially they have the special knowledge and will just have to do what they think God says and to bad for the unbeliever. This why Joseph said what was right in one circumstance can be wrong in another and what was wrong can be right in another when he tried to persuade Nancy Rigdon to marry him. It can be used I to justify ending a marriage when one is not spouse may have lost their testimony. It can be a reason parents shun a child.

And it has been used to justify inflicting mayhem on other humans who may not be true beleviers of another faith. The Bible is full of such examples. Radical Islam loves this idea.....the unbeliever does not have the light and knowledge the believer has so no big deal to chop of their head.

[Teancum]

What in the world is so dangerous about being humble enough to admit that we're all spiritually blind and ignorant to one degree or another?

I don't thing that was JL's point. He can clarify.

[JulieM]

If Emma was a 500 pound ball and chain keeping him back, he had to do what he had to do.

So, Joseph HAD to sneak off to the barn with Fanny, marry young teenage girls who worked for Emma and marry wives of other members? Is that what you mean when you say "he had to do what he had to do"?

[Bobbieaware]

I don't thing that was JL's point. He can clarify.

It was the first of his two points that I found absolutely brilliant. To twit, in reality we are all numbered among the Saviorr's "swine," to one degree or another. Which is why we know so very little about the deeper mysteries of the kingdom of God. In Hebrews, Paul warns the Church that the reason why he was unable to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of God to them is because they were spiritually unprepared, and if he were to reveal the mysteries to them in their spiritually unprepared condition, they would consider the deeper doctrines of heaven to be evil.

And this is precisely what's happened in the case of those who think Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy is evil: Because they are spiritually unprepared to receive it, in fulfillment of Paul's warning, their darkened minds esteem a sacred Gospel principle to be evil, because without the enlightening power of the Spirit they cannot comprehend it. But as I said, the main point is that all of us are spiritually unprepared to one degree or another, and the proof of it is that God is keeping the general membership of the Church in the dark when it comes to the deeper mysteries. And who can deny it because it was Joseph Smith himself who said even his most faithful, loyal and devoted followers would want to take his life if he revealed the mysteries of the kingdom to them while they were in their present spiritually unprepared state.

As to the second point, which I thought was avery good one, it is Mormonism 101 to understand that those who will resist and not obey the doctrines that are revealed to them will be left further and further in the dark until they know nothing concerning the kingdom of God. Those who have obtained a revelatory knowledge of the truth (a testimony) but then refuse to pay heed to that truth will eventually lose their testimonies and be left in the dark. If you will take the time to carefully read the following words of Alma, this principle will be made crystal clear:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him (Zeezrom), saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12)

Sadly, it could well be that Joseph Smith found himself in a situation where he could either obey God or obey the spiritually-darkened mind of his wife. And if you will remember, it was the Savior himself who warned that anyone who would put family members before him would not be worthy of the kingdom. Here are his words:

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10)

Edited August 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[jkwilliams]

As to the second point, which I thought was avery good one, it is Mormonism 101 to understand that those who will resist and not obey the doctrines that are revealed to them will be left further and further in the dark until they know nothing concerning the kingdom of God. Those who have obtained a revelatory knowledge of the truth (a testimony) but then refuse to pay heed to that truth will eventually lose their testimonies and be left in the dark. If you will take the time to carefully read the following words of Alma, this principle will be made crystal clear:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him (Zeezrom), saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12)

Sadly, it could well be that Joseph Smith found himself in a situation where he could either obey God or obey the spiritually-darkened mind of his wife. And if you will remember, it was the Savior himself who warned that anyone who would put family members before him would not be worthy of the kingdom. Here are his words:

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10)

 

That's not at all what he said. He said that, once Emma had said no, she no longer had a right to know what Joseph was doing with other women. 

[ALarson]

What in the world is so dangerous about being humble enough to admit that we're all spiritually blind and ignorant to one degree or another?

What's that got to do with the details of how Joseph lived polygamy and Emma not accepting them?  

 

Couldn't Joseph have been obedient and taken other wives without lying to Emma and going behind her back to marry her housemaids, his friend's daughters and their friend's wives? How dare Emma say "no" to that!  And because she did say no to all this, you actually believe she lost her right to have an honest and truthful relationship with Joseph?

 

And you call that reasoning "absolutely brilliant"?

 

Do you believe Joseph was commanded to live polyandry too?  Where is that in the scriptures?

Edited August 19, 2015 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

What's that got to do with the details of how Joseph lived polygamy and Emma not accepting them?  

 

Couldn't Joseph have been obedient and taken other wives without lying to Emma and going behind her back to marry her housemaids, his friend's daughters and their friend's wives? How dare Emma say "no" to that!  And because she did say no to all this, you actually believe she lost her right to have an honest and truthful relationship with Joseph?

 

And you call that reasoning "absolutely brilliant"?

 

Do you believe Joseph was commanded to live polyandry too?  Where is that in the scriptures?

All I can say is that my wife would be devastated if she found out I was hiding anything from her; Finances, porn addiction, a drinking problem, whatever. I can't even imagine the pain and devastation she would feel if she found out I was taking other wives without her knowledge. The fact that Emma stuck by Joseph is an amazing testament because the betrayal must have destroyed her trust in him. I don't think it's possible for me to see it any other way than a betrayal of trust.

[JulieM]

All I can say is that my wife would be devastated if she found out I was hiding anything from her; Finances, porn addiction, a drinking problem, whatever. I can't even imagine the pain and devastation she would feel if she found out I was taking other wives without her knowledge. The fact that Emma stuck by Joseph is an amazing testament because the betrayal must have destroyed her trust in him. I don't think it's possible for me to see it any other way than a betrayal of trust.

I agree 100% with this. And to state that it's "brilliant" to believe that Emma deserved to be lied to by her husband simply because she couldn't give her approval is shocking to me. Maybe Bobbieaware didn't really mean that and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here.

[jkwilliams]

I agree 100% with this. And to state that it's "brilliant" to believe that Emma deserved to be lied to by her husband simply because she couldn't give her approval is shocking to me. Maybe Bobbieaware didn't really mean that and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here.

 

Maybe they didn't mean it that way, but that's how it came across.

[Bobbieaware]

What's that got to do with the details of how Joseph lived polygamy and Emma accepting them?

Couldn't Joseph have been obedient and taken other wives without lying to Emma and going behind her back to marry her housemaids, his friend's daughters and their friend's wives? How dare Emma say "no" to that! And because she did say no to all this, you actually believe she lost her right to have an honest and truthful relationship with Joseph?

Do you believe Joseph was commanded to live polyandry too? Where is that in the scriptures?

When it comes to Joseph Smith's polygamy, I believe we are now, at best, "looking through a glass darkly;" and in the end he will be totally vindicated and declared innocent of any wrongdoing with regard to plural marriage on the day of judgement by the Lord himself. There will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth when those who so fervently wanted to believe he did wrong -- so they could feel justifed in their own iniquities -- will learn he only did what God commanded him to do.

There is certainly way to prove this to any critic's satisfaction, but this is what I believe. I feel the Spirit of the Lord and the revelations of God much too strongly in my life. through my membership and active participation in the Church, to ever dare to say that the Ptophet Joseph Smith didn't lay a true and faithful foundation. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good and holy fruit, and I know the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are the finest, most sincere and spiritually-empowered men on earth. Get over it if you can, but I will remain true and faithful to what for me has been a source of tremendous joy and peace unspeakable.

But there's no sense arguing about it because the things of God will always appear absurd and foolish to the mind of flesh. And in its own way, a mind of the flesh can become almost as completely convinced as is a mind that's under the influence of the Spirit. So these arguments end up like like like futile attempts to emulsify oil and water. So why even try?

Edited August 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[bcuzbcuz]

I hardly think that Genesis is a biography of the life of Adam.  If he lived 930 years, then 99.9% of his life we have no account for.  Perhaps Adam did have more than one wife after he left the garden.

Do the math. If Adam had more than one wife they were his daughters. Having sex with one's daughter? There's a word for that.

[Bobbieaware]

Do the math. If Adam had more than one wife they were his daughters. Having sex with one's daughter? There's a word for that.

What about having intimate relations with one's sister, because that's precisely what happened when Adam's sons and daughters kept the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Tacenda]

When it comes to Joseph Smith's polygamy, I believe we are now, at best, "looking through a glass darkly;" and in the end he will be totally vindicated and declared innocent of any wrongdoing with regard to plural marriage on the day of judgement by the Lord himself. There will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth when those who so fervently wanted to believe he did wrong -- so they could feel justifed in their own iniquities -- will learn he only did what God commanded him to do.

I think the reverse will happen, you and others will find it wasn't commanded to live polygamy that way at all, but wait...no weeping, wailing or gnashing of teeth, prophets are fallible!

[bcuzbcuz]

I went to seminary from 1977 to 1981. I don't remember any formal lessons about polygamy (I could have been absent or asleep - early morning), but when the subject came up these were the common explanations.

• Joseph did not want to do it but took 2 or 3 wives to comply with the Lord's command.
• So many men were killed from the persecutions that Joseph (and others) took in the widows so they wouldn't be alone.
• The older widows needed to be taken care of by somebody.

I never heard anything about polyandry or teenage brides.

Exactly the same discussion/information I recieved in 1963. Polygamy was a non-issue because the actual truth/numbers/dates were misrepresented.

[jkwilliams]

When it comes to Joseph Smith's polygamy, I believe we are now, at best, "looking through a glass darkly;" and in the end he will be totally vindicated and declared innocent of any wrongdoing with regard to plural marriage on the day of judgement by the Lord himself. There will be weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth when those who so fervently wanted to believe he did wrong -- so they could feel justifed in their own iniquities -- will learn he only did what God commanded him to do.

Just curious, but why do you believe that Joseph Smith never did anything remotely wrong? Is there some requirement that we have to accept every last thing a prophet does as being the will of God? I think this gets dangerously close to assigning infallibility to the prophet. Would you have a problem with a prophet who did something wrong? Would, say, lying to the police about a criminal case disqualify a man from being a prophet?

There is certainly way to prove this to any critic's satisfaction, but this is what I believe. I feel the Spirit of the Lord and the revelations of God much too strongly in my life. through my membership and active participation in the Church, to ever dare to say that the Ptophet Joseph Smith didn't lay a true and faithful foundation. A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good and holy fruit, and I know the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are the finest, most sincere and spiritually-empowered men on earth. Get over it if you can, but I will remain true and faithful to what for me has been a source of tremendous joy and peace unspeakable.

Can a prophet lay a true and faithful foundation without being perfect?

But there's no sense arguing about it because the things of God will always appear absurd and foolish to the mind of flesh. And in its own way, a mind of the flesh can become almost as completely convinced as is a mind that's under the influence of the Spirit. So these arguments end up like like like futile attempts to emulsify oil and water. So why even try?

It just seems like a rather black-and-white way of looking at life. I had a professor at BYU who talked about people who can't handle their leaders' flaws and errors. He said that, while stationed in the Army, he came across some troubling information about Joseph Smith that he couldn't resolve. He went to his branch president, a man he looked up to as an example and mentor. When the branch president opened the door, he was smoking a cigar. My professor said he resolved then and there never to let a church leader's failings affect his own faith.

I don't understand the need to vindicate every last bit of Joseph Smith's life. Seems like it sets us up for some disappointment.

[jkwilliams]

I think the reverse will happen, you and others will find it wasn't commanded to live polygamy that way at all, but wait...no weeping, wailing or gnashing of teeth, prophets are fallible!

Exactly. I think it was Wilford Woodruff who said he was grateful he had seen Joseph Smith's flaws and mistakes because, if God could do such a great work through such a flawed man, there was hope for Wilford Woodruff.

[Bobbieaware]

I think the reverse will happen, you and others will find it wasn't commanded to live polygamy that way at all, but wait...no weeping, wailing or gnashing of teeth, prophets are fallible!

It appears you're returned (perhaps you never left?) to believing the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are prophets. If so, I'm very happy for you.

[ALarson]

But there's no sense arguing about it because the things of God will always appear absurd and foolish to the mind of flesh.

Always?  I don't believe this.  Go back to Christ's teachings.  You think they always appear "absurd and foolish"?  Or aren't His teachings the "things of God"?

[jkwilliams]

Always?  I don't believe this.  Go back to Christ's teachings.  You think they always appear "absurd and foolish"?  Or aren't His teachings the "things of God"?

Also, we're talking about things that violate our conscience. Reducing the light of Christ to "the mind of the flesh" is, well, absurd and foolish.