Joseph Smith's Polygamy

[jkwilliams]

Yeah I remember that. That was on that thread talking about the "Church's" willful pathological lieing about every thing it teaches.

 

I'm just saying that for a very long time, folks here have been attacking people for suggesting that the church teach more accurate information. And yes, people have said it's not the church's responsibility to teach accurate history (that's pretty close to a direct quote) and that people who want more information are asking to be spoon-fed (that's also a direct quote). So, Senator's point was a good one: the church has apparently come around to the position that what they were teaching wasn't enough. No willful, pathological lying necessary.

[Zakuska]

And when the Church does teach more accurate information what happens?

 

More Whining and accusations of deceptiveness.

 

eg. the Essays, Church publisihing the Seer Stone Images, etc. etc. etc.

Edited August 13, 2015 by Zakuska

[ALarson]

Yeah, I was thinking today about how people say it's not the church's responsibility to teach accurate history, that people who are upset at not being taught the history are asking for everything to be spoon-fed to them. Does that mean the church now thinks it should teach accurate history and spoon-feed it to members?

I think it just means that the leaders are willing to at least have a discussion about polygamy or the seer stone and more (from the essays, etc.).  The details are being discovered by members, so the leaders should want to participate in the discussion.  I think that's progress and I appreciate calmoriah posting this link.

 

Now, when it finally actually reaches all of the members and things like polygamy and the seer stone can be openly discussed at church or in a gospel doctrine class, that will really be progress. Right now someone is met with glares or uncomfortable silence if they mention Joseph Smith's polygamy or other difficult parts or truths from church history in a class setting at church.

Edited August 13, 2015 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

I think it just means that the leaders are willing to at least have a discussion about polygamy or the seer stone and more (from the essays, etc.).  The details are being discovered by members, so the leaders should want to participate in the discussion.  I think that's progress and I appreciate calmoriah posting this link.

 

Now, when it finally actually reaches all of the members and things like polygamy and the seer stone can be openly discussed at church or in a gospel doctrine class, that will be really progress. Right now someone is met with glares or uncomfortable silence if they mention Joseph Smith's polygamy or other uncomfortable parts of church history in a class setting at church.

 

Agreed. It was just that I had the same thought Senator did about how things have changed. The other thing that people used to say was that we "critics" would never be satisfied, no matter how much the church opens up. I've mentioned before that I have a few issues with what I see as serious spin in some of the essays, but in general, I think they do as good a job as I could have hoped the church would do. In short, what the church is doing isn't perfect, but it's pretty good.

[jkwilliams]

And when the Church does teach more accurate information what happens?

 

More Whining and accusations of deceptiveness.

 

eg. the Essays, Church publisihing the Seer Stone Images, etc. etc. etc.

 

See post #29.

[ALarson]

Agreed. It was just that I had the same thought Senator did about how things have changed. The other thing that people used to say was that we "critics" would never be satisfied, no matter how much the church opens up. I've mentioned before that I have a few issues with what I see as serious spin in some of the essays, but in general, I think they do as good a job as I could have hoped the church would do. In short, what the church is doing isn't perfect, but it's pretty good.

Progress is good no matter how slow it is.

 

It wasn't too many years ago that I tried to talk to my Bishop after discovering details about Joseph's polygamy and polyandry.  He told me to stop reading anti-Mormon lies and that Joseph had been sealed only to older widows (whose husbands had been killed by the mob).

 

Now , the "anit-Mormon" information I found is included in the essays and in talks like Sister Hales gave here.  So yes, that's progress.

[jkwilliams]

Progress is good no matter how slow it is.

 

It wasn't too many years ago that I tried to talk to my Bishop after discovering details about Joseph's polygamy and polyandry.  He told me to stop reading anti-Mormon lies and that Joseph had been sealed only to older widows (whose husbands had been killed by the mob).

 

Now , the "anit-Mormon" information I found is included in the essays and in talks like Sister Hales gave here.  So yes, that's progress.

 

Yep. My mother told me a few years ago that the troubling stuff about polygamy was just a result of a "hatchet job on Joseph Smith by that Brodie woman." Part of me is curious to see what her reaction is to the essays, as they confirm Brodie's "lies," but I really have no interest in arguing religion with anyone in my family, so I leave it alone.

[HappyJackWagon]

As I said people have been blaming God for their own evil actions for a long time now.

 

I just don't see it that way. Even leaving God out of the equation these were all people of legal age to consent to marry. They could have told Joseph, Brigham, or whomever to take a hike if they didn't want to marry them. Nothing in our doctrine requires agreement to marry to an undesirable, for whatever reason, suitor.

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don't go astray, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet he knows the way. (True, it's a modern song but I believe the sentiment was the mostly the same)

 

When the prophet comes to you and says, "thus saith the lord" I think most people have a strong tendancy to follow and obey.

 

To your point, if I'm not mistaken Joseph took this approach in getting Martha Brotherton to agree to marry Brigham. It didn't work in this case, which shows that some may have had the ability to say "take a hike" but it seems like she may be more of an exception to the rule. I don't recall if she faced any negative repercussions for the denial.

[TheSkepticChristian]

And when the Church does teach more accurate information what happens?

 

More Whining and accusations of deceptiveness.

 

LOL what a double standard

 

 

It's certainly a very quick summary, but it's accurate and, as cinepro said, it explains perfectly why people have issues with Joseph's practice of polygamy. In the end, whether or not God permitted something, it doesn't mean it can't be troubling. I'm troubled by the slaughters the Israelites carried out in the Old Testament, but as you say, there's nothing precluding God from commanding it.

 

Polygamy doesn't bother me at all, I hope the church returns to polygamy, I think it is cool. 

 

I find it more shocking that there were a lot of bigots in the 19th century. 

Edited August 13, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[The Nehor]

5 out of 6 fundamentalists would agree. (Just Kidding- Please don't call for a CFR)

 

Of course fundamentalists believe the practice is God sanctioned and that the LDS abandonment is only temporary, that they are the protectors of the practice until it is brought back officially. It's interesting stuff.

I question why they think God needs to protect it until it comes back. By that standard the return of the sealing power itself was a fraud unless there was some clandestine group practicing it since the time of Christ.

[Teancum]

I haven't read the book. What I am responding to is the article she wrote in which she wrote.

"There were clandestine marriages, pretend husbands, young brides, already married brides, altogether too many brides, Abrahamic-like tests, and surprising interactions between Joseph, Emma, and his plural wives, coupled with a doctrine that I struggled to understand".

 

To be fair I have no desire for more than the one, and only, wife I had for the last 43 years. But can find no convincing argument that would preclude God from permitting it.

 

 

I find no convincing argument that God commanded it, or even more so, required it.

[HappyJackWagon]

I question why they think God needs to protect it until it comes back. By that standard the return of the sealing power itself was a fraud unless there was some clandestine group practicing it since the time of Christ.

I think it was the 1886 prophesy by John Taylor that stated polygamy must continue, that 1 year without a child born into polygamy would pass except it usher in the 2nd coming (something to that effect). John Taylor allegedly bestowed the responsibility to carry on polygamy within the council of friends, which included George Q Cannon and 2 of the Wooleys. This is clearly a disputed revelation but it is accepted by the fundamentalists as validation for their continuation of polygamy even after the church public disavowed. Like previous disavowals of polygamy, then a wink and a nod from the church, it is believed by some that polygamy is essential and this group was required to keep it going until the church could return to it.

[ALarson]

To your point, if I'm not mistaken Joseph took this approach in getting Martha Brotherton to agree to marry Brigham. It didn't work in this case, which shows that some may have had the ability to say "take a hike" but it seems like she may be more of an exception to the rule. I don't recall if she faced any negative repercussions for the denial.

I won't derail this thread with a discussion of what took place with Martha Brotherton, but that's definitely a case you'll want to learn more about as it's very interesting and pretty sad really.

[ALarson]

I think it was the 1886 prophesy by John Taylor that stated polygamy must continue, that 1 year without a child born into polygamy would pass except it usher in the 2nd coming (something to that effect). John Taylor allegedly bestowed the responsibility to carry on polygamy within the council of friends, which included George Q Cannon and 2 of the Wooleys. This is clearly a disputed revelation but it is accepted by the fundamentalists as validation for their continuation of polygamy even after the church public disavowed. Like previous disavowals of polygamy, then a wink and a nod from the church, it is believed by some that polygamy is essential and this group was required to keep it going until the church could return to it.

Here's a link that explains more about the revelation that some believe John Taylor received (and yes, it's wiki but that's a start for those who are interested):

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1886_Revelation

[Bobbieaware]

I find no convincing argument that God commanded it, or even more so, required it.

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering if you believe there has ever been a convincing argument made that God has commanded or required anything at all, not just plural marriage? Your answer seems to imply you believe there are instances where convincing arguments have been made that God did command or require something. I'd find it interesting to know what those other convincing arguments are.

[ttribe]

Polygamy doesn't bother me at all, I hope the church returns to polygamy, I think it is cool. 

 

You might change your mind if you read any books about the FLDS.

[Bobbieaware]

You might change your mind if you read any books about the FLDS.

So we are supposed to look at the examples of groups of apostates, without authority and devoid of the Spirit, to understand why and how plural marriage practiced under the proper authority and with the empowering aid of the Spirit can't work?

[Zakuska]

LOL what a double standard

 

 

 

 

Polygamy doesn't bother me at all, I hope the church returns to polygamy, I think it is cool. 

 

I find it more shocking that there were a lot of bigots in the 19th century. 

 

Double Standard how so?

 

What ever the church does its in a losing situation with some people.

[ttribe]

So we are supposed to look at the examples of groups of apostates, without authority and devoid of the Spirit, to understand why and how plural marriage practiced under the proper authority and with the empowering aid of the Spirit can't work?

 

[sigh]  No.  You missed the point and went straight to attack mode, again.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Double Standard how so?

 

remember your conspiracy theories? LOL 

never mind, it is another topic 

 

 

You might change your mind if you read any books about the FLDS.

 

but what about consenting adults? Is that wrong?  Bad things happen in monogamous marriages too, so your argument is not valid. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I bet the only appropriate place for polygamy is in the eternities. I know relatives and apostles who have been sealed to more than one wife after the first died or divorced civially, but not temple divorce.

[KevinG]

I don't think we will return to polygamy if it becomes legal.  We haven't even mastered monogamy yet.

[ttribe]

but what about consenting adults? Is that wrong?  Bad things happen in monogamous marriages too, so your argument is not valid. 

 

Well, amongst consenting adults it's one thing and I didn't say anything about something being "wrong."  Furthermore, I didn't actually posit an "argument" for you to declare invalid.

 

So, to expand just a bit, I'll say this - I have yet to see any large group attempt to practice polygamy as a matter of a philosophical or theological tenant where it didn't eventually devolve into serious abuses, especially related to teenage girls.  If polygamy is divinely sanctioned, I'm all but decided that it can't be practiced in mortality for any extended period of time as a matter of institutional practice without costs that outweigh its benefits.  Furthermore, as a father to a daughter I can't see any situation where I'd want her to be one among many (or even several) in terms of the number of wives in a marital relationship.  My hope for her is she can find someone to be her best friend whose romantic and spousal attentions are focused on her alone.

Edited August 13, 2015 by ttribe

[Bobbieaware]

[sigh]  No.  You missed the point and went straight to attack mode, again.

Then what is the point that I missed (I looked but could not find)?

[Teancum]

Just out of curiosity, I'm wondering if you believe there has ever been a convincing argument made that God has commanded or required anything at all, not just plural marriage? Your answer seems to imply you believe there are instances where convincing arguments have been made that God did command or require something. I'd find it interesting to know what those other convincing arguments are.

I like love your neighbor as yourself and do unto others as you want them to do to you. I can even go with love God with all your heart mind might, etc.

All the other stuff that gives power and control over others by the person claiming to speak for God is suspect. In the LDS church and Joseph Smith's career plural marriage tops that list for me at least.