Bill Reel's Sunstone Presentation and a Path to the Disavowal of D&C 132

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Certainly with Fanny.  But then again, she left him around 1836 I believe.  So it was just a couple years.  And, that one seemed like a particularly sneaky affair--meaning it wasn't known by Emma.  If any consummating took place it was a in a barn.  Lucinda Harris also seems like a prime candidate to not really get involved with Smith, even if they married (I think one of the more disputed marriages).  So, Scott's point is possible. 

If the goal was to raise up seed, Joseph shouldn't have been marrying women that he couldn't impregnate.

Further, if he didn't have time to bear children with any of his existing wives, it doesn't make sense that he kept adding new ones... roughly two dozen in the last two years of his life.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

If the goal was to raise up seed, Joseph shouldn't have been marrying women that he couldn't impregnate.

Further, if he didn't have time to bear children with any of his existing wives, it doesn't make sense that he kept adding new ones... roughly two dozen in the last two years of his life.

I'm with ya, actually.  I just like to switch it up and support Scott's point from time to time.  I think Scott's point carries some merit, bcause although he married tons of them ladies, he didn't seem to have much time with them.  Then again it only takes a few minutes--well for some of us even less than that.  In that sense 2 years is tons of time. 

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

During his 17 year (mortal) marriage to Emma, they had 11 kids.  Roughly one every year and a half.

Joseph married his second wife in 1833.  Over a decade before his death.

Joseph married his third wife in 1838.  Six years before his death.

Three more wives in 1841.  He was married more than two years to each of them.

Eleven more wives in 1842.  Married more than a year to each of them.

Is it really your argument that he didn't have enough time to produce seed with any of those women?

Not a strong argument, that's for sure.

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm with ya, actually.  I just like to switch it up and support Scott's point from time to time.  I think Scott's point carries some merit, bcause although he married tons of them ladies, he didn't seem to have much time with them.  Then again it only takes a few minutes--well for some of us even less than that.  In that sense 2 years is tons of time. 

The practice of plural marriage put the lives of Joseph and many others in peril.  It put the continuation of the church in peril.  It sparked the series of events that led to the martyrdom.  It contributed to the expulsion.

And supposedly the entire purpose was to raise up seed.  You'd think that Joseph might have paused to think that instead of continuing to marry new women (at the rate of one/month) he should focus on accomplishing the Lord's purpose in issuing the command.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

The practice of plural marriage put the lives of Joseph and many others in peril.  It put the continuation of the church in peril.  It sparked the series of events that led to the martyrdom.  It contributed to the expulsion.

And supposedly the entire purpose was to raise up seed.  You'd think that Joseph might have paused to think that instead of continuing to marry new women (at the rate of one/month) he should focus on accomplishing the Lord's purpose in issuing the command.

Well he could have tried, I suppose.

Yeah, but I honestly don't get why he went from a seemingly reluctant polygamy (ok some shout out to Meg whatshernames book) to cronic courting, then marrying fiend.  He seemed to go from, "i'm scared to implement this practice even though this half-invisible guy keeps threatening me with a sword" to "wahoo...I'm marrying whomever I want whenever I want". 

[smac97]

On 8/3/2016 at 2:44 PM, stemelbow said:

Well wife just notified me that she is going to a book signing with Ms Pearson, so if she's not happy with me she can take it out on her.

Seriously, though. I haven't thought much of legalizing polygamy.  I'm just saying if as I consider it and it comes down to what it did for me regarding SSM, I might support it.  I'm all for consenting adults living as they deem necessary, as long as it doesn't hurt others. 

That sounds nice in the abstract.  But I think we should think the matter through.  For example, consider the complications that arise when "consenting adults" withdraw their consent.  When they get a divorce.  Think about things like child support, child custody, alimony, visitation schedules, division of assets, and so on.  Think about how difficult a job it is for the courts to manage such issues in the breakup of a binary marriage.  With multiple parties (say, three wives and one husband, or four husbands and one wife, or three husbands and two wives, and . . . you get the idea), it will be a nightmare.

What about property ownership during the marriage?  Will lenders be willing to loan money for, say, a home to a marital group of five people?  Six?  Will they be allowed to not loan money based on marital status (probably not)?  Will this present an increased risk to lenders?  Will lenders increase interest rates to offset those risks?

What about taxes?  How will tax deductions work where a married group may have four or five or six wage-earners, but who will be entitled to the same sort of tax deductions and breaks as binary couples?  Is that fair?  Will that materially affect the amount of taxes collected?  Will collected taxes go up or down?  If down, will the government raise taxes on everyone to offset the diminished revenues owing to group marriages?

I'm just spitballing here.  I think a more rigorous examination of the prospective problems associated with legalizing polygamy would be much more sobering.  Here's one preliminary effort (emphasis added):

Quote

Legalizing polygamy would not be anywhere near so simple {compared to the legalization of same-sex marriage}. It would require an extensive reworking of our law in many areas in order to be workable. Will these be treated as one group marriage (rather like a business association, which would then be governed by a board of some sort), or a series of (nonexclusive) binary marriage contracts? With multiple legal spouses, what do we do about insurance benefits? Who gets to make medical decisions? Child custody issues? Does a polygamous spouse get the immigration benefits of marriage? Which spouse gets social security benefits, or do you allocate them pro rata among all spouses or something like that? How would intestacy work? The practical challenges to legalizing polygamy would be legion.

These legal challenges could be solved by motivated legislatures committed to solving them. After all, writing laws is what they do, and certainly creative solutions to these kinds of conundrums could be found. But in the absence of a substantial constituency backed by public opinion stumping for such legal marital structures, it just ain’t gonna happen.

And yet it's a constitutional right, isn't it?  So I'm not sure a "substantial constituency backed by public opinion" is going to be required.  After Obergefell, the pro-polygamy folks are pretty much pushing on an open door.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 3, 2018 by smac97

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That sounds nice in the abstract.  But I think we should think the matter through.  For example, consider the complications that arise when "consenting adults" withdraw their consent.  When they get a divorce.  Think about things like child support, child custody, alimony, visitation schedules, division of assets, and so on.  Think about how difficult a job it is for the courts to manage such issues in the breakup of a binary marriage.  With multiple parties (say, three wives and one husband, or four husbands and one wife, or three husbands and two wives, and . . . you get the idea), it will be a nightmare.

Fewf! that does sound nightmarish.  I tried to indicate I haven't thought it through.  I probably have a ways to go on this. 

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What about property ownership during the marriage?  Will lenders be willing to loan money for, say, a home to a marital group of five people?  Six?  Will they be allowed to not loan money based on marital status (probably not)?  Will this present an increased risk to lenders?  Will lenders increase interest rates to offset those risks?

What about taxes?  How will tax deductions work where a married group may have four or five or six wage-earners, but who will be entitled to the same sort of tax deductions and breaks as binary couples?  Is that fair?  Will that materially affect the amount of taxes collected?  Will collected taxes go up or down?  If down, will the government raise taxes on everyone to offset the diminished revenues owing to group marriages?

I'm just spitballing here.  I think a more rigorous examination of the prospective problems associated with legalizing polygamy would be much more sobering.  Here's one preliminary effort (emphasis added):

And yet it's a constitutional right, isn't it?  So I'm not sure a "substantial constituency back by public opinion" is going to be required.  After Obergefell, the pro-polygamy folks are pretty much pushing on an open door.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well it sounds like you have some ideas right there to differentiate the cases of SSM and polygamy. 

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find this to be quite overwrought.  And twaddle to boot.

I predict that the concept of polygamy is on its way to becoming more sociopolitically palatable in the United State, not less.  Unlike the novelty of same-sex marriage, polygamy has a long, long pedigree in the world.  There are plenty of reasoned arguments that the decriminalization and subsequent legalization of polygamy has already begun:

• Huffington Pot: Legalize Polygamy! No. I am not kidding. By Jillian Keenan
• Vice: After Gay Marriage, Why Not Polygamy?  By Harry Cheadle
• CNN: It's time to reconsider polygamy. By Mark Goldfeder
• The New American: Is Polygamy the Next Form of "Marriage" to be Legalized? By Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
• Verdict, by Justia: Is Three Still a Crowd? Polygamy and the Law After Obergefell v. Hodges. By Joanna L. Grossman and Lawrence M. Friedman
• Emory Law School: Can polygamy bans survive a legal challenge? By Emory University School of Law
• TheWeek: How gay marriage paves the way for legal polygamy. By Michael Brendan Dougherty
• ListLand: Top 10 Reasons The US Should Legalize Polygamy

My personal opinion is that legalization of polygamy is a matter of when, not if.  Once the traditional understanding of marriage is destroyed (SSM is doing that), once marriage as a concept is decoupled from procreation (SSM is doing that), once marriage becomes just another type of contract (SSM is doing that), then polygamy is essentially indistinguishable from same-sex marriage.  So if the latter is a constitutional right, then so is the former.  If the states are constitutionally prohibited from defining marriage as to gender, how on earth can they be constitutionally permitted to define marriage as to number?  The eventual answer to this question is . . . they are not so permitted.  We have destroyed the traditional purpose and function of marriage (from the government's point of view, anyway).  We did so by legalizing same-sex marriage.  So polygamy is, I think, well on its way.

So back to the above-referenced melodramatic twaddle.  I may be wrong, but isn't a fair bit of this stuff coming from the same factions within the Church which have embraces same-sex marriage, which have criticized the Church's stance on SSM?  If so, that's . . . pretty weird.  And inconsistent.  

I think those who A) have previously embraced same-sex marriage, but B) are presently exhibiting all sorts of pearl-clutching histrionics about polygamy as a "ghost" that "haunts" the Church . . . yeah, no.  Such flamboyance will be squelched as soon as society begins to view "prejudice" against polygamy as being the twin to "prejudice" against same-sex marriage.  That process has already started.  

I can't help but think of the quandary which will be encountered by the SSM-is-wonderful-but-polygamy-is-horrible crowd when they are the on the receiving end of hostilities from their compatriots: self-congratulatory "virtue signalling" social justice types, the transgressivists, the self-selected gainsayers who presume to dictate to the rest of us on matters of ethics.  And since polygamy is trangressive, I think it will be just a matter of time before we see more visible calls for legalization of its various forms: polygyny (one husband having multiple wives at the same time), polyandry (one wife having multiple wives at the same time) and group marriage (infinite variations on numbers of husbands, wives, all-same-sex polygamy, etc.).

I suspect that the SSM-is-wonderful-but-polygamy-is-horrible crowd, having abandoned prophetic counsel as a voice of influence, will be left without a viable moral code, and hence will not enjoy being accused by their fellows of being haters, of being polygamyphobic (or whatever neologism will be created to define people who oppose polygamy).  So . . . they will capitulate.  Sooner or later.

I certainly understand and respect people who oppose polygamy on actual, principled grounds.  On moral grounds.  On religious grounds.  Right or wrong, such folks are at least trying to do what they feel is right.  But I think there are broad swaths of transgressive, social justice types who are essentially crowd-followers, who abandon principle and capitulate to prevailing and popular social trends.  Who take their cues on morality more from Hollywood, Facebook and Twitter, and less from the judeo-christian tradition (and, for Latter-day Saints, from modern prophets and apostles).  Sadly, I also think there are some members of the LDS Church who are in the thrall of this crowd.  And some of these are the SSM-is-wonderful-but-polygamy-is-horrible crowd.  Frankly, I do not see a coherent line of reasoning for this, as support for the former seems to logically require support for the latter.

In any event, to such folks I say: Good luck!  Good luck embracing same-sex marriage on the one hand, but rejecting polygamy on the other!  Your transgressive compatriots will turn on you, sooner or later.  And it will be . . . unpleasant.  In the days ahead, should you attempt to voice opposition to polygamy, you will be excoriated.  You will be branded as haters and bigots.  You will be silenced.  That will be your lot, I think.  The folks who publicly call (or "screech" or "violently demand") the loudest for "tolerance" and "diversity" seem the least likely to actually either when it comes to the shibboleths of transgressivism and "social justice."

Meanwhile, in the long run I think the LDS Church will be in the somewhat ironic position of being criticized for not accepting or allowing its members to engage in polygamy (again, much as we are presently excoriated for not accepting same-sex marriage).  But unlike the SJW types, the Latter-day Saints have an actual, quantifiable moral code.  It's not always popular.  And we do not always perfectly understand it or implement it.  But it's ours, and we are working hard to adhere to it.  It is well-described in Ether 12:4:

So I predict that we will see the LDS Church as an institution which restricts its members from entering into not only same-sex marriage, but also polygyny, polyandry, and group marriages.

Thanks,

-Smac

To cast my assertion that the church is being haunted by its embrace or justification, as the case my apply, of polygamy both past, present and future as twaddle is just living in denial of reality Smac.  Plus you make a lot of broad assumptions regarding what I may or may not believe, support or promote.  As you like to tell other posters...YOU DON'T KNOW ME NOR HAVE WE EVER MET so please refrain from projecting your broad generalities on me or those you perceive occurring in society at large.

I stand by what I posted...despite your dismissal as mere twaddle.  Your blind spot is being exposed.

Thanks,

-Johnnie Cake

Edited August 3, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[VideoGameJunkie]

I don't believe polygamy works in a fallen world, but I can see it working during the Millennium in a terrestrial world and in the Celestial Kingdom in a Celestial state.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Fewf! that does sound nightmarish.  I tried to indicate I haven't thought it through.  I probably have a ways to go on this. 

Well it sounds like you have some ideas right there to differentiate the cases of SSM and polygamy. 

No, not really.  From a constitutional rights perspective, these problems are irrelevant.  Imagine the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education saying something like "Well, yes, race-based segregation of public schools in unconstitutional, but desegregation will be a hassle, so we'll allow this unconstitutional state of things to continue."

If SSM is a constitutional right, then so is polygamy.  That's the argument.  And it seems like a pretty good one.  That it is a right that will be incredibly difficult to implement is irrelevant.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well he could have tried, I suppose.

Yeah, but I honestly don't get why he went from a seemingly reluctant polygamy (ok some shout out to Meg whatshernames book) to cronic courting, then marrying fiend.  He seemed to go from, "i'm scared to implement this practice even though this half-invisible guy keeps threatening me with a sword" to "wahoo...I'm marrying whomever I want whenever I want". 

Exactly, and including young women and the wives of his friends (and other men).  Why did that need to happen in order to restore plural marriage?

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you believe, as you have stated, that carpet salesman and pawnbroker are both "noble" occupations, why is it a "cheap shot" for me to state correctly that both apply to Bill Reel?

Or if you think it a "cheap shot" for me to even bring up his occupation in the discussion, why did you apparently give him a pass when he endeavored to make my occupation a point of discussion and a reason for criticizing my behavior? I would never have mentioned his being a carpet salesman-turned-pawnbroker had he not done that.

Ok on second thought I'm going to weigh in again...It is true that I believe both of these occupations to be noble...but more to the point it doesn't matter what I think, its what do you think?  Which is why when I sensed some condescension and snobbery on your part that I called you out.  I will be happy to retract said post if you can assure me that were you not intending a cheap shot at Bill by referring to his employment.  And if not intending a cheap shot why refer to his employment in the first place? What exactly was your motivation in referring to his employment?

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

To cast my assertion that the church is being haunted by its embrace or justification, as the case my apply, of polygamy both past, present and future as twaddle is just living in denial of reality Smac.  Plus you make a lot of broad assumptions regarding what I may or may not believe, support or promote.  As you like to tell other posters...YOU DON'T KNOW ME NOR HAVE WE EVER MET so please refrain from projecting your broad generalities on me or those you perceive occurring in society at large.

I stand by what I posted...despite your dismissal as mere twaddle.  Your blind spot is being exposed.

Thanks,

-Johnnie Cake

Well, I suppose I should apologize.  I found the references of polygamy as a haunting ghost to be melodramatic ("The Ghost of Polygamy Past..." " It's a problem, it exists, it's real and NO OFFICIAL IN THE CHURCH WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT and so it quietly simmers...but it's a bout to boil over...") and overwrought (I don't think it is a big concern for most members of the Church, and is instead a pet project for a noisy few, so ominous threats that "it's about to boil over" seem to be quite an exaggeration).

I went to some effort to present my opinion of the situation generally, and to avoid critiquing your personal position.  As you correctly noted, I don't know you.  Hence my remarks pertained to those who A) have previously embraced same-sex marriage, but B) are presently exhibiting all sorts of pearl-clutching histrionics about polygamy as a 'ghost' that 'haunts' the Church."  In retrospect, I should not have quoted you when referencing "those who...", and for that I apologize.  But then, I'm not sure I was quoting you, as I actually had Carol Lynn Pearson's book in mind (which, for the record, I find to be melodramatic twaddle).

But that is neither here nor there.  I do not know you.  I was making observations about "broad generalities," and did so in a careless way that implicated you.  I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

No, not really..but the fact that JS at this point as no other offspring from other wives means (IMO) that the reason for polygamy was to bring up seed..doesn't really work.

I think it still works.  

It seems reasonable, even if JS was not able to use it to produce seed himself, that the prophet who restored it would need to be following the commandment if he expected others to do so.  The 'do what i say and not what i do' line of reasoning rarely works on anyone.  Think of how it would have been for something as hard as polygamy to know that the man who is saying 'God says we need to do this' was also saying 'everyone but me I mean'.  

It's not like JS knew he would never have children with those women, right?  Or are you saying that he never slept with any of them so he should have known his life would not follow the BOM verse on why polygamy is sometimes o.k.?  Maybe i'm misunderstanding you.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well sure for Hagar.  But, I don't know it is known that it was always a step up. 

Have you studied history or anything dealing with this topic Stem?  I'm just asking because you keep saying 'i don't know if it's known....' about these historical issues and i'd like to know what basis you have for making that claim.

[VideoGameJunkie]

This is a quote from Brigham Young to the women that were unhappy during polygamy:

 

“Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, ‘My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife; No, not a happy day for a year,' says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not he liberty they ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men together with their own folly.
“I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, No go your way, my women with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty. ‘What, first wife too?' Yes, I will liberate you all....
“I wish my women, and brother Kimball's and brother Grant's to leave, and every woman in this Territory, or else say in their hearts that they will embrace the Gospel – the whole of it.... say to your wives, ‘Take all that I have and be set at liberty; but if you stay with me you shall comply with the law of God, and that too without any murmuring and whining. You must fulfill the law of God in every respect, and round up your shoulders to walk up to the mark without any grunting.' Now recollect that two weeks from tomorrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, ‘It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;' then I say it is time that you gave him up to other women who will bear children. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children....
“Sisters, I am not joking, I do not throw out my proposition to banter your feelings, to see whether you will leave your husbands, all or any of you. But I do know that there is no cessation to the everlasting whining of many of the women in this Territory; I am satisfied that this is the case. And if the women will turn from the commandments of God and continue to despise the order of heaven, I will pray that the curse of the Almighty may be close to their heels, and that it may be following them all day long....
“Prepare yourselves for two weeks from tomorrow; and I will tell you now, that if you will tarry with your husbands, after I have set you free, you must bow down to it, and submit yourselves to the celestial law. You may go where you please, after two weeks from tomorrow; but, remember, that I will not hear any more of this whining.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, pp. 55-57, also printed in the Deseret News, v. 6, pp. 235-236

Edited August 3, 2016 by VideoGameJunkie

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Joseph Smith was murdered at a young age,  44.

Prior to that, he was constantly hounded by his enemies.

And he did not proceed to live the commandment fully until the angel's third appearance to him in 1842, a scant two years before his death.

How do you know that, had he been allowed to live n peace, he would not have been as prolific as Brigham Young or perhaps more so in raising up seed?

If it didn't "really work" in Joseph's case, it was because he was murdered by his enemies before he could carry it out.

I know Joseph Smith had a lot of enemies, Scott, but I don't think you can blame them for absolutely everything.

And I am pretty sure Joseph was murdered at 38 1/2.

(I expect you were thinking of the year.)

[consiglieri]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

If SSM is a constitutional right, then so is polygamy.  That's the argument.  And it seems like a pretty good one.  That it is a right that will be incredibly difficult to implement is irrelevant.

 

I agree with you on this, Smac, and I have long held the position that one of the reasons the LDS Church fought so hard against legalizing gay marriage is because it opens the door to the legalization of plural marriage.

And when that happens, it is going to blow some Mormon minds.

Think about it.  The LDS Church stopped practicing plural marriage because it was made illegal by the federal government.

Many LDS leaders have said that the practice was stopped, but the doctrine continues.

What is the LDS Church going to do when the practice is made legal again?

That is the $64 question.

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Ok on second thought I'm going to weigh in again...It is true that I believe both of these occupations to be noble...but more to the point it doesn't matter what I think, its what do you think?  Which is why when I sensed some condescension and snobbery on your part that I called you out.  I will be happy to retract said post if you can assure me that were you not intending a cheap shot at Bill by referring to his employment.  And if not intending a cheap shot why refer to his employment in the first place? What exactly was your motivation in referring to his employment?

I'm under no obligation to respond to your badgering with questions I have already answered. (I notice that in badgering me with your questions, you have ignored mine.)

And as I don't live and die by what you think of me, it's of little concern to me whether you retract your unjust accusation.

I've already denied it, and that's where things stand.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I know Joseph Smith had a lot of enemies, Scott, but I don't think you can blame them for absolutely everything.

I'm not. But it's unreasonable to expect that Joseph would have left a huge posterity within a scant two years prior to his death, not with all he had to put up with.
 

Quote

 

And I am pretty sure Joseph was murdered at 38 1/2.

(I expect you were thinking of the year.)

 

Actually I inadvertently took Hyrum's age at death for Josephs in the source I consulted.

Thanks for the correction.

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I know Joseph Smith had a lot of enemies, Scott, but I don't think you can blame them for absolutely everything.

And I am pretty sure Joseph was murdered at 38 1/2.

(I expect you were thinking of the year.)

Joseph's advice to William Clayton about what to do in case his plural wife became pregnant suggests to me that having children wasn't the primary goal. 

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

This is a quote from Brigham Young to the women that were unhappy during polygamy:

 

“Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, ‘My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife; No, not a happy day for a year,' says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not he liberty they ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men together with their own folly.
“I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, No go your way, my women with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty. ‘What, first wife too?' Yes, I will liberate you all....
“I wish my women, and brother Kimball's and brother Grant's to leave, and every woman in this Territory, or else say in their hearts that they will embrace the Gospel – the whole of it.... say to your wives, ‘Take all that I have and be set at liberty; but if you stay with me you shall comply with the law of God, and that too without any murmuring and whining. You must fulfill the law of God in every respect, and round up your shoulders to walk up to the mark without any grunting.' Now recollect that two weeks from tomorrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, ‘It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;' then I say it is time that you gave him up to other women who will bear children. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children....
“Sisters, I am not joking, I do not throw out my proposition to banter your feelings, to see whether you will leave your husbands, all or any of you. But I do know that there is no cessation to the everlasting whining of many of the women in this Territory; I am satisfied that this is the case. And if the women will turn from the commandments of God and continue to despise the order of heaven, I will pray that the curse of the Almighty may be close to their heels, and that it may be following them all day long....
“Prepare yourselves for two weeks from tomorrow; and I will tell you now, that if you will tarry with your husbands, after I have set you free, you must bow down to it, and submit yourselves to the celestial law. You may go where you please, after two weeks from tomorrow; but, remember, that I will not hear any more of this whining.”

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, pp. 55-57, also printed in the Deseret News, v. 6, pp. 235-236

Oh  my  goodness.  These poor women that thought this was coming straight from God? I think that's what you call taking the Lord God's name in vain, to a nth degree.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not saying your idea is not worth considering but I really hate the ramifications if there is any truth to it.  God needed polygamy to sift people out?  I find such a thought disturbing--probably why I'm feeling inclined to reject D&C 132. 

God didn't need it or any other of the numerous things that cause people to reflect on where their loyalties really lie, but it was good imo for the Church and its members to have a longterm stable leadership rather than the high turnover, often conflicted leadership that occurred in the first years.  I think in many ways it speeded up the process as well as encouraged rejection up front from those who might have joined with less commitment (because of confused expectations) than needed to endure many of the hardships that would have occurred even without plural marriage (remember they had to leave at least two places way before plural marriage came into the picture), thus perhaps saving a great deal of both physical and spiritual hardship for those individuals.  For those who stayed, plural marriage offered through its pressure cooker effect a level of opportunities of growth that might not have been available to most people of the time in their lifetime.  

In some ways, the better technology of communication has had a pressurecooker effect on our faith that was lacking in previous years.

God appears to be quite willing to give people plenty of opportunities to make important choices at various times during history.  It seems society coasts for awhile with the status quo and then God throws in something to shake things up...Abraham to reinvigorate the Covenant, Moses to shift the Covenant people back to independence, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lehi to challenge authority thinking, the disperal of the Israelities and then Jews, John the Baptist and Christ of course and then the early turmoil of the LDS Saints.  It seems that if a society stays too long in a certain path, it becomes a rut, so God presents other pathways for those who put spiritual progression as their highest desire even if it means their physical and emotional needs have to take second or third place in attention for awhile.

 I personally think that is the primary purpose of this existence, even more important for most (not all) than getting a body.  Ensuring that the best range of of options of growth is available without intruding on the limits of agency must be a huge balancing act even for someone of infinite knowledge.

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it still works.  

It seems reasonable, even if JS was not able to use it to produce seed himself, that the prophet who restored it would need to be following the commandment if he expected others to do so.  The 'do what i say and not what i do' line of reasoning rarely works on anyone.  Think of how it would have been for something as hard as polygamy to know that the man who is saying 'God says we need to do this' was also saying 'everyone but me I mean'.  

It's not like JS knew he would never have children with those women, right?  Or are you saying that he never slept with any of them so he should have known his life would not follow the BOM verse on why polygamy is sometimes o.k.?  Maybe i'm misunderstanding you.

That, in addition to the fact that he only lived for two years after he began to practice plural marriage in earnest in response to the third visit from the angel, is the defense I typically give for this line of argument -- which really is quite weak in reasoning as arguments go.

[VideoGameJunkie]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Oh  my  goodness.  These poor women that thought this was coming straight from God? I think that's what you call taking the Lord God's name in vain, to a nth degree.

Ya quotes like that make me glad I'm not a woman living in that time period.