Joseph Smith's Polygamy

[why me]

Yes defenders of Joseph's purely dynastic roll out of plural marriage forget about Brigham et all.

Not really. If Brigham stayed in nauvoo and the saints also, I doubt if he would do things differently than joseph. But once the saints were free from the mobs, they began to practice it openly. And we know what happened when they did practice polygamy openly, the US army got involved and the wrath of the gentiles were upon them. What would have happened in nauvoo if the secret got out of the bag? So I do think that joseph was more careful about the principle and did it his way while BY did it his way. That being said, did any of the other plural marriages at the time of joseph have children?

 

Also what would have been the motive to begin plural marriage again after fanny? Sex? I doubt it. If joseph were horn dog, he would be sleeping around after fanny. Such horndogs can't seem to control their libidos. So, was joseph a horndog. I doubt it. I believe what he said. He was commanded to begin the practice again after years of slacking off.

Edited August 16, 2015 by why me

[bcuzbcuz]

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, like you, have no desire for more than one wife, but I can find nothing in presentations that the church makes that say I should expect to need to add more wives.

[Tacenda]

The nice thing about polygamy is it that is sorts out the contenders from the pretenders.  If a person says they believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, BOM is true, ect and then finds some of the particulars in the practice of polygamy and it bothers them to the point of leaving the Church, then it is fairly clear to me their testimony was pretty shallow before they heard about it.

Sounds like the truest believing mormons are the groups still practicing.

[Tacenda]

No, but how is polygamy itself wrong? Just because we LDS no longer agree with it, doesn't mean it is wrong.

I can name more books about domestic violence and adultery, so your point is?

Bytheway, polygamy was not common in the early church, and most of the few polygamists only had two wives.

I think the church needs to go back to polygamy because there are a lot of single sisters, and women live longer than men.

To this last sentence, I wonder if there would be fewer female LDS singles if they didn't believe in having to marry someone of their religion and in the temple. I'd almost bet that number would go down significantly. Edited August 16, 2015 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

I, like you, have no desire for more than one wife, but I can find nothing in presentations that the church makes that say I should expect to need to add more wives.

 

The Book of Mormon's Jacob has it at the Lords command. So I assume that he can do that at his pleasure. Though not necessarily ours.

[JLHPROF]

To this last sentence, I wonder if there would be fewer female LDS singles if they didn't believe in having to marry someone of their religion and in the temple. I'd almost bet that number would go down significantly.

 

But if that were the case they still would be single in the next life.  The requirements for exaltation require eternal marriage.  The requirements for eternal marriage require a temple sealing.  None else will be married in the next life.  No way around that, regardless of belief.  Even if I didn't believe it, it would still be true.

[JLHPROF]

When I read about Joseph Smith being sealed to a 14 year old to be his wife, I attach nothing more to that sealing than when my wife and I were sealed to our adopted son when he was around 8 months old.  It is the same sealing ordinance in both situations.  Nothing wrong has occurred between the relationship that we have with our son even though we were sealed to him and him to us.  So to us, what Joseph did is no big deal since he really did nothing different than what we did.

 

The idea that the marriage sealing and the parent/child sealing are the same is just not true.  Anyone that doubts it needs to revisit/reread the ceremonies.

Legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity is hardly the same thing as an heir as though you were born in the new and everlasting covenant.  The wording is not the same.  The blessings are not the same.  The commandments given as part of the spousal sealing ceremony are not part of the parental sealing ceremony.

 

I don't feel the need to attach a sexual relationship between Joseph and Helen Mar Kimball since a sexual relationship is not required for the sealing ordinance and them to be "married" to be valid.  For me sex and marriage are two different things.  One can have sex and not be married and one can be married and not have sex.  Because I separate the two, what Joseph did with is various wives really does not disturb me.  Now if a person requires that one must follow the other, then I can see how they could have a problem with it.

 

I agree with some of this, but there is a commandment given as part of the sealing ceremony that does require sex.  It just doesn't put a timeline on it.  I doubt Joseph had relations with his 14 year olds wives.  But I have little doubt that it would have happened if he had lived

[Tacenda]

The idea that the marriage sealing and the parent/child sealing are the same is just not true. Anyone that doubts it needs to revisit/reread the ceremonies.

Legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity is hardly the same thing as an heir as though you were born in the new and everlasting covenant. The wording is not the same. The blessings are not the same. The commandments given as part of the spousal sealing ceremony are not part of the parental sealing ceremony.

I agree with some of this, but there is a commandment given as part of the sealing ceremony that does require sex. It just doesn't put a timeline on it. I doubt Joseph had relations with his 14 year olds wives. But I have little doubt that it would have happened if he had lived

I know Joeseph knew a few of his wives as children or pre-teen age.

[JLHPROF]

I know Joeseph knew a few of his wives as children or pre-teen age.

 

So did a great number of people.

[why me]

To this last sentence, I wonder if there would be fewer female LDS singles if they didn't believe in having to marry someone of their religion and in the temple. I'd almost bet that number would go down significantly.

The idea of marrying outside one's faith is rather new. My father and mother were both catholics. They never would have married a protestant. And protestants did not marry catholics. And most lutherans married other lutherans etc. And of course even now, jews tend to marry jews and muslims tend to marry muslims. The mormons may now be unique in christianity as the christian religion takes on less importance but in the past, they were far from unique in encourging people to marry  within their faith.

 

Having a two faith marriage hardly ever works when both are true believers.

[carbon dioxide]

The idea that the marriage sealing and the parent/child sealing are the same is just not true.  Anyone that doubts it needs to revisit/reread the ceremonies.

Legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity is hardly the same thing as an heir as though you were born in the new and everlasting covenant.  The wording is not the same.  The blessings are not the same.  The commandments given as part of the spousal sealing ceremony are not part of the parental sealing ceremony.

 

I realize they are not exactly the same and thus would not use the same words.  My point is that once any type of temple sealing occurs, it is done.  Nothing more needs to be done.  An promise to an eternal bond has begun.  If a virgin couple is sealed in the temple and then are killed in a car crash on the way to to reception are just as married as a couple who has 12 kids and lived to a ripe old age.  So if Joseph Smith was sealed to a wife, there is no requirement for anything beyond in their relationship to finish that sealing outside the temple.  So no need for Joseph to have any intimate relationship with a 14 year old ect.  

[Calm]

Sounds like the truest believing mormons are the groups still practicing.

Except that they have cherry picked what to believe.  They have ignored the principle of continuing revelation to the Church and how it is supposed to be done with authority, etc.

[Calm]

I know Joeseph knew a few of his wives as children or pre-teen age.

Is there something wrong with that?  He wasn't married to them at that age or even promised in marriage.

 

Possibly a majority of people would back then given the less mobile family.  If you marry someone from the area you grew up, you would likely have known them as children and they you unless they were 13 years older than you were or the reverse.

Edited August 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[Teancum]

Except that they have cherry picked what to believe.  They have ignored the principle of continuing revelation to the Church and how it is supposed to be done with authority, etc.

  But in fairness those who still practice polygamy believe President Woodruff was in error with the Manifesto.  Many of the sects also claim continuing revelation as well as the authority to practice plural marriage.  Warren Jeffs certainly does.

[Bobbieaware]

But in fairness those who still practice polygamy believe President Woodruff was in error with the Manifesto. Many of the sects also claim continuing revelation as well as the authority to practice plural marriage. Warren Jeffs certainly does.

But here's the insurmountable problem the polygamous offshoots never seem consider: There are many prophecies in the Standard Works that could never hope to be fulfilled by a rinky dink offshoot of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. By throwing in their lot with one of these inconsequential apostate groups, it evinces the fact that these folks seem too clueless to realize they are immediately invalidating every prophecy regarding God's latter-day kingdom that is prophesied to send missionaries throughout the world and have congregations in every nation before the Second Coming. And I wonder how many of these folks realize the practice of polygamy was predestined to come to an end because there is no way the Church could hope to grow and prosper in the 20th century while doggedly clinging to a principle that was, as much as anything else, calculated to be a short-lived test of the the loyalty and faith of the Church's pioneering 19th century converts.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[TheSkepticChristian]

D&C 132 seems to require sexual relations as it states that plural marriage is to raise up righteous seed.

 

Even if true, then it seems he didn't follow D&C 132 because there is no evidence that JS had sex with 14 year olds.

 

Joseph Smith did not live with his wives as husband and wife, so it was not a traditional marriage.

Edited August 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[why me]

  But in fairness those who still practice polygamy believe President Woodruff was in error with the Manifesto.  Many of the sects also claim continuing revelation as well as the authority to practice plural marriage.  Warren Jeffs certainly does.

Are you sure that Jeffs actually thinks so? It seems unlikely that he does.  The lds church seems to exist and prosper from continuing revelation. Jeffs' group is not very successful since it is a rather small sect. And this is the problem with mormon offshoots: they haven't been very successful in generating growth worldwide. They tend to be small and stagnant. The continuing revelation aspect just doesn't add up.

Edited August 16, 2015 by why me

[Tacenda]

Is there something wrong with that? He wasn't married to them at that age or even promised in marriage.

Possibly a majority of people would back then given the less mobile family. If you marry someone from the area you grew up, you would likely have known them as children and they you unless they were 13 years older than you were or the reverse.

Yes yes, right, but my problem is being told long ago that polygamy was for marrying widowed women, to take care of them. Maybe if it was told truthfully to me at first, it would sit better.

[ttribe]

What you are describing is called a cult and abusive religious leaders, of course I am against that. Both polygamous and monogamous cults are bad. Are you sure all polygamists belong to a dangerous cult?

 

Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith was abusive towards his wives? Did he threaten them? 

 

Are you sure all polygamist leaders are abusive? 

 

Not one of your questions refers to anything I've actually said.  I'll try this one more time in an effort to be clear.

 

- What do you think I mean by "abuse"?

 

- What do you think I mean by "institutional setting"?

 

- What do you think I mean by "eventually devolve"?

 

BTW, can you please stop linking the same videos over and over again?

Edited August 16, 2015 by ttribe

[ttribe]

No, I actually know many polygamists, spend time with them socially, have visited their homes.

I think I have a slightly more realistic view than some sensationalized books.

Unless you think books like Under the Banner of Heaven teach real Church history?

 

How can you conclude the books I referred to are "sensationalized" if you haven't read them?

 

As to Under the Banner of Heaven, since when are the Lafferty's part of "church history"?

 

Question regarding your polygamist acquaintances - Are they associated with the Kingstons?

[ttribe]

Anyone that believes polygamy is inherently abusive and that all polygamists are abusive is purely prejudiced and completely ignorant.

Does abuse exist among polygamists?  Sure, just as it does among members of the Church, the Catholic Church, the Muslim religion, the conservative Christian sects, and I've even heard of it among the atheists.

 

I'm not suggesting ignoring abuse, but I really wish people would educate themselves about entire groups of people before passing judgement.

 

If you are referring to me with this, you don't understand my position, at all.

[JLHPROF]

I realize they are not exactly the same and thus would not use the same words.  My point is that once any type of temple sealing occurs, it is done.  Nothing more needs to be done.  An promise to an eternal bond has begun.  If a virgin couple is sealed in the temple and then are killed in a car crash on the way to to reception are just as married as a couple who has 12 kids and lived to a ripe old age.  So if Joseph Smith was sealed to a wife, there is no requirement for anything beyond in their relationship to finish that sealing outside the temple.  So no need for Joseph to have any intimate relationship with a 14 year old ect.  

 

Thank you for the clarification.  I am still not sure I 100% agree as there are covenants made in the spousal sealing and commandments related to it.

But I understand what you were meaning now.

[JLHPROF]

How can you conclude the books I referred to are "sensationalized" if you haven't read them?

 

As to Under the Banner of Heaven, since when are the Lafferty's part of "church history"?

 

Question regarding your polygamist acquaintances - Are they associated with the Kingstons?

 

My Under the Banner of Heaven reference referred to his "history" of Joseph Smith.  It was no more accurate than many books on polygamy by former members/anti-members are about their history.  I don't deny the wickedness in some polygamist groups, but to blame polygamy for wicked mens actions is wrong.

 

Most polygamists I know personally are AUB, Independent, or "Third Ward".  I work near the True Value hardware store run by the Kingstons.

 

 

If you are referring to me with this, you don't understand my position, at all.

 

I am referring to anyone who believes that polygamists = abusers.  If that's not you that's great.

[ttribe]

My Under the Banner of Heaven reference referred to his "history" of Joseph Smith.  It was no more accurate than many books on polygamy by former members/anti-members are about their history.  I don't deny the wickedness in some polygamist groups, but to blame polygamy for wicked mens actions is wrong.

 

Krakauer's inclusion of history on Joseph Smith was completely ancillary to the events in question.  It's also unsurprising that any outsider has a distorted view of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al.  That being said, it doesn't change the fact that each of these groups is part of the legacy left behind by Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy; whether we, in the mainstream LDS Church like it, or not.

[Robert F. Smith]

How does my view defame Abraham and Jacob assuming the Bible is accurate about them? Did God command them to,take many wives and concubines for exaltation or was it the cultural norm of their day. Did they tell women God had reserved them for marriage to them and put a clock on it for a decision? Did they deceive their wife in regards to taking on additional wives? Did they lie about it publicly?

Presentism indeed.....

When necessary, Abraham was quick with a lie -- to Pharaoh, for example, hiding the fact that Sarah was his wife.

 

Your own defamation of Uncle Abe is contained in your claim that "at least for me Joseph could simply not be the one special one that had divine sanction from God for something that seems so ungodly."  You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but why would you attempt to separate your frank opinion of modern events from those in the Bible?  That's right:  Presentism . . .