Happy Polygamy Day!

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sure.  My testimony that plural marriage of a false and evil practice is as good as yours that it isn't. 

We share the same testimony, which I am sure that is also shared by many in the church.  

[BCSpace]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sure.  My testimony that plural marriage of a false and evil practice is as good as yours that it isn't. 

Interesting how the world claims to be repulsed by plural marriage and goes after it so yellow journalistically.  But the reality is that the world practices a counterfeit to LDS plural marriage that makes it guilty of the very things it accuses practitioners of LDS plural marriage.  It's called multiple sex partners (either all at once or throughout life or some combination) and it greatly oppresses women and children and allows men to be horn dogs and get away with it without an ounce of responsibility.  If practitioners of LDS plural marriage only wanted sexual access, why go to all that trouble of getting married and weighing oneself down with actual responsibility?

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Oh does it?  How so?

Well if you don't believe D&C 132 is true and you get sealed anyway then the sealing is not in effect. How can you covenant  in something you don't believe is true?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I will be 100 percent honest. When it comes to thinking about polygamy being a celestial order, I'm happy that im a man. I can't imagine what women must fear or suffer through.

[Buckeye]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

According to Wikipedia's "On This Day" feature box:
July 12, 1843 – Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, proclaimed a revelation recommending polygamy.

Funny thing to have on the front page sidebar. 

From Wikipedia: On July 12, 1843, Joseph Smith is said to have received a revelation that is much more widely accepted by historians. The revelation was supposedly dictated by Smith to his scribe William Clayton, and was shared with Smith's wife Emma later that day. Clayton wrote in his journal:

• Wednesday 12th This A.M, I wrote a Revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs in Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon having many wives & concubines &c. After it was wrote Prests. Joseph & Hyrum presented it and read it to [Emma] who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious. [Joseph]...appears much troubled about [Emma.]

So, Happy polygamy day everyone! 

 

 

 

It all makes sense now. I was wondering why my twitter feed was full of hastags for #allwivesmatter 

 

[Traela]

Historically, women (especially young women) without family support usually had three choices: get married, become a prostitute, or starve.  This was especially true in the American West.  Prostitution was often little better than starvation, and lead to multiple diseases as well.  As far as marriage goes, there were definitely fewer men who wanted to get married than were actually available.  There was an even smaller percentage that were actually worth marrying.

Polygamy, for all its faults, gave women choices.  They could choose to be the multiple wife of a good man, rather than the single wife of a bad one.  Or, because there was less competition for the available men, they could choose to wait to see if a better option came along.  Liberal divorce laws also made it possible to get out of an unpleasant marriage.  Wasn't it Hebert J. Grant whose mother was in a very short-lived polygamous marriage?  I wish polygamy had been an option for my husband's ancestress.  After she was widowed, she was forced to marry a horrible, abusive man to keep her children from starving.

It's also far superior to the currently acceptable idea of serial monogamy, or worse, a network of baby mamas and baby daddies who make no commitment to any of their partners.

 

 

[USU78]

15 hours ago, Teancum said:

I prayed about plural marriage.  God told me it was false. 

Prove it!

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sure.  My testimony that plural marriage of a false and evil practice is as good as yours that it isn't. 

When did it become so? In Nauvoo or Israel? When practiced by the first Prophets or our Prophet? 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Are you sealed to your wife? If so that makes you a hypocrite.

Great point, D&C 132 is not just about polygamy, it is also about "Eternal Families" and "eternal increase". Don't know how anyone can be a Mormon and not believe some if not all of D&C 132. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

When did it become so? In Nauvoo or Israel? When practiced by the first Prophets or our Prophet?

When Christ practiced it?  The same Christ who did nothing except that which he saw his Father do?
 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

When Christ practiced it?  The same Christ who did nothing except that which he saw his Father do?
 

I did not link or speak of Christ and polygamy, I was asking our brother who was so angered at it's practice, I was just trying to see how far back the anger went. Was it always wrong, or only wrong in our Western Christian worldview of today? 

 

[JLHPROF]

51 minutes ago, Traela said:

 Wasn't it Heber J. Grant whose mother was in a very short-lived polygamous marriage?

Heber's father Jedediah died when Heber was 9 days old.  A quick google shows his mother remarried in a Levirate marriage to Jedediah's brother George but George became an alcoholic so she left him.

Heber's Father had seven wives and Heber's mother Rachel was number 7.  They were married for 14 months before his death.
(Heber himself had at least 3 wives and remained a polygamist until 1908 when only one of his wives survived).

But here's the kicker...Rachel was sealed posthumously to Joseph Smith and then sealed to Jedediah for time only.  This would make Heber J. Grant the son of Joseph Smith in the eternities.

Quote

http://www.ldswomenofgod.com/rachel-ivins-grant/

When she was twenty-one, she traveled with her family to Nauvoo, arriving in the Spring of 1842. She was welcomed by the Saints, and enjoyed much friendship there.  One of her closest friends was Sarah Kimball. She met the Prophet, seeing him preach powerful sermons, as well as playing at parties. She said, “When he preached, his power deeply affected me. But in private and informal moments, he seemed distressingly ‘unProphet-like’. Joseph would ask Rachel to be one of his wives, but she was too horrified  and confused to answer. After his death, she returned to New Jersey, both physically (due to malaria) and spiritually ailing.  She stayed for ten years.

She lived with family, some who were Mormon, and others who were not. Eventually, the Mormon family wanted to go west to join the Saints and Rachel was ready to join them. She traveled with Israel and Anna Ivins, and their children, Caroline and Anthony (a future apostle). When they arrived in the valley, Jedediah Grant greeted them, and offered them a place, until they were situated. Rachel was thirty-two by then.

Jedediah M. Grant was born in New York, baptized at age seventeen, and a member of Zion’s Camp. In the Salt Lake Valley, he was the first mayor of Salt Lake City, as well as second counselor to Brigham Young. He was married with six wives when he welcomed the Ivins family into his home. He would soon ask for Rachel to be his seventh wife. Rachel was first sealed to Joseph Smith, then she was married for time to Jedediah. One year and two months later, Jedediah died of typhoid, leaving her with one child, Heber Jeddy Grant.

 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

I did not link or speak of Christ and polygamy, I was asking our brother who was so angered at it's practice, I was just trying to see how far back the anger went. Was it always wrong, or only wrong in our Western Christian worldview of today?

 

Our brother has been thread banned so cannot answer.
I will say that in my opinion it is only Western European tradition that makes us think polygamy is wrong.

[Buckeye]

20 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

Great point, D&C 132 is not just about polygamy, it is also about "Eternal Families" and "eternal increase". Don't know how anyone can be a Mormon and not believe some if not all of D&C 132. 

I believe some of section 132. The good parts.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Our brother has been thread banned so cannot answer.
I will say that in my opinion it is only Western European tradition that makes us think polygamy is wrong.

Same as I view it, but I am forced to put it into historical context when calling it hands down good or bad. But, even in scripture where it was practiced, even under God's command...it was at best, it was never a happy institution. 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Pa Pa said:

Same as I view it, but I am forced to put it into historical context when calling it hands down good or bad. But, even in scripture where it was practiced, even under God's command...it was at best, it was never a happy institution.

Sacrifice rarely is happy.  But that doesn't make it wrong.
Stupid mortality getting in the way...

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

I believe some of section 132. The good parts.

Some interesting Church history concerning that day. Hyrum was telling Joseph to use the U&T to receive and dictate this section and he would take it to Emma. Joseph told him that he did not need the U&T (so in Nauvoo the Church still had it) he told Hyrum and his scribe that he knew it by heart and had know it since the 1830's. So at that time and without pause he dictated the entire section. He also knew th document would lead to his death. One more thing this young Prophet got right...it did lead to a great split within the Church, and some of those who left the Church because of it, were in the mob that killed Joseph and Hyrum and nearly John Taylor. It was a tragic day and certainly a historical day.

[Buckeye]

12 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

Some interesting Church history concerning that day. Hyrum was telling Joseph to use the U&T to receive and dictate this section and he would take it to Emma. Joseph told him that he did not need the U&T (so in Nauvoo the Church still had it) he told Hyrum and his scribe that he knew it by heart and had know it since the 1830's. So at that time and without pause he dictated the entire section. He also knew th document would lead to his death. One more thing this young Prophet got right...it did lead to a great split within the Church, and some of those who left the Church because of it, were in the mob that killed Joseph and Hyrum and nearly John Taylor. It was a tragic day and certainly a historical day.

Others who eventually left the church because of Section 132 include Emma and her children. Also split off were fundamentalist groups in the 1900s that continued to hold to the full principles in Section 132 even though the FP and majority of saints decided to leave them. Yes, polygamy certainly has led to lots of division. That's probably why it never comes up in my ward.

[Buckeye]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sacrifice rarely is happy.  But that doesn't make it wrong.
Stupid mortality getting in the way...

Sacrifice alone does not make anything right or wrong. But it usually makes us more attached to the thing we sacrificed for.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Others who eventually left the church because of Section 132 include Emma and her children. Also split off were fundamentalist groups in the 1900s that continued to hold to the full principles in Section 132 even though the FP and majority of saints decided to leave them. Yes, polygamy certainly has led to lots of division. That's probably why it never comes up in my ward.

I don't see how a lesson can  be given on D&C 132 and polygamy not "come up".
It would require major tunnel vision or voluntary blindness.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see how a lesson can  be given on D&C 132 and polygamy not "come up".
It would require major tunnel vision or voluntary blindness.

I've never once heard a lesson on polygamy in GD class, not saying it doesn't happen. What has been your experience with this JLH? 

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see how a lesson can  be given on D&C 132 and polygamy not "come up".
It would require major tunnel vision or voluntary blindness.

Typically lessons on Section 132 cover eternal marriage and other acceptable concepts. We run out of time before we get to the law of sarah. And the GD instructor is well prepared to not call on the HPs this day.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've never once heard a lesson on polygamy in GD class, not saying it doesn't happen. What has been your experience with this JLH?

I have never heard a lesson on the subject.  It has occasionally been mentioned in passing, especially when covering D&C 132.
But the GD manual instructs us to limit our reading to " Prayerfully study Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4; 132:4–33; and the other scriptures in this lesson."
Occasionally, when reading verse 4, verses 1-3 still get noticed.

I can usually go along with this, but the reinterpretation of D&C 131 always makes me a little cranky.

15 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Typically lessons on Section 132 cover eternal marriage and other acceptable concepts. We run out of time before we get to the law of sarah. And the GD instructor is well prepared to not call on the HPs this day.

 that's funny.  But since most of the HPs are  anyway...
In my experience it's usually been an older sister that has made some subtle jab against the practice before the teacher moves on.

Edited July 13, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Buckeye]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 that's funny.  But since most of the HPs are  anyway...
In my experience it's usually been an older sister that has made some subtle jab against the practice before the teacher moves on.

In my experience, the men have learned to stay silent on the issue. Whether asleep or not, none of us are going to come anywhere close to the subject. Sometimes a sister will give a "wives tale" explanation for the practice (such as that there was a shortage of men at the time) and even though its bad information (the church essays do a good job of debunking many of these pet theories) I still remain silent because saying anything about the subject is too big a risk that I'll be sleeping on the couch. They most I've said recently is to refer people to the essays.

[sheilauk]

14 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I will be 100 percent honest. When it comes to thinking about polygamy being a celestial order, I'm happy that im a man. I can't imagine what women must fear or suffer through.

I for one fear nothing or suffer through anything to do with the celestial Kingdom or polygamy therein.  What will be will be.  Not speaking for anyone else, however.