Reconciling the Lucy Walker story

[Danzo]

39 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I'm sorry - do you not want to discuss Lucy's feelings of being "tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable" ?  Just move on to the good parts right?  Let me change this to say, that I agree that we should not include an ellipses . . .  in the proposed young women's curriculum for historical references to struggle, doubt, or the cases where women rebuffed Joseph's proposals.  

I am sorry if I did not make it clear.  I would be happy to include all of it. Not just your cherry picked quotes. 

Let Lucy speak for herself.   She was a big girl and doesn't need you to edit her comments.

Edited December 29, 2017 by Danzo

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Bob Crockett said:

See, you don't really believe in free will.  You believe in and blame institutional will.

My favorite example is this:  When the Martin Handcart company sallied forth in late September, a number of families decided instead to winter over and wait until Spring.  They were called "back-outs" by those who went on.  Franklin D. Richards was there to criticize the "back-outs."  The next spring Elder RIchards almost lost his membership over this issue.  Who is to blame for the death in Wyoming?  

One can both recognize that adults have the right and ability to say "no" as well as "yes" while still being heavily influenced by the opinions or instructions of those they care about (love or respect).

People don't make decisions randomly or without regard to anything or anyone else.

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Do you think that might be because it is largely manufactured?

Consider the fact that DB keeps harping on the claim that Lucy was Joseph's "'intents and purposes'  foster daughter." The facts you've put forward show her to be something of a parlour-boarder. DB has worked really hard to turn the arrangement into a kind of quasi-father-daughter relationship in order to beat up some moral outrage.

But it's entirely artificial.

More mind reading from RCM/Pahoran/kiwi....

[Duncan]

A couple of things perhaps about why of all of this polygamy and other issues

“If we are serious about our discipleship, Jesus will eventually request each of us to do those very things which are most difficult for us to do.”

Elder Neal A. Maxwell. A Time to Choose (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1972), 46.

 

 "I heard the Prophet Joseph Smith say to the Twelve, 'You will have all kinds of troubles and trials to pass through. And it is quite as necessary for you to be tried, even as Abraham and other men of God.' And said he, 'God will feel after you and he will take hold of you and wrench your very heart strings. And if you cannot stand it, you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God.'" (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24, p. 197.)

Plus DC 101 about being tried even as Abraham. 

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I would suggest that the greatest and most important freedom is the freedom to figure out for ourselves whether or not our leaders are inspired and whether or not we should be obedient.  Only then does freedom come from being obedient.  But sadly the Church has never taught that (that I can find).

Strange.  I would say that this falls squarely into what the Church has taught.  

Latter-day Saints are taught to seek guidance from the Spirit to discern truth.  Truth can come from various sources.  As pertaining to the Restored Gospel, the principal conduits are the scriptures (writings of past prophets and apostles), counsel from living prophets and apostles, and personal revelation.  These things, ideally, should work in harmony with each other.  Sometimes when they appear not to . . . well, we work on it.

I think we should analyze or evaluate or determine for ourselves whether the leaders of the Church are acting under inspiration.  I also think we should operate from a position of faith.  I also think we should give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt.  That is, I think we should generally "decide that you will believe someone, even though you are not sure that what the person is saying is true."  I think such a presumption would a healthy thing.  I also think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.

However, this presumption should not be unthinking or devoid of analysis.  To the contrary, we are supposed to examine the words of our leaders.  Consider these remarks by Kent Jackson:

Quote

The more restrictive view of what constitutes scripture would include only what is called "the scriptures"-that is, the four standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These constitute the canonized, authoritative corpus of revealed writings against which all else is measured. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203).

And these by then-Elder Harold B. Lee of the Twelve:

Quote

It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator — please note that one exception {when he is speaking as the prophet, taught from earlier in the paragraph} — you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea.” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard” — it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it.

And these remarks by President Lee:

Quote

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion.  The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church.  And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard  Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69)

So my rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren.  To give them the benefit of the doubt.  To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit.  Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time.  

However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption.  That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations."  That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works."  That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works."  We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility.  So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it.  To think about it.  To study it.  To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy.  To weight it against the Standard Works.  And most of all, to pray about it.  

So if I find the statement to be "beyond" what it is the Standard Works, then I generally either reject it or label it in my mind as a person opinion of the speaker (and hence I am not bound by it).  If I find the statement to contradict the Standard Works, then I reject it altogether.  

Consider, by way of example, Amasa Lyman, who while serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it.  He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated).

Imagine the confusion, and perhaps even apostasy, that would be caused if members of the Church today uncritically accepted remarks similar to what Elder Lyman taught.  And then consider the wisdom of the counsel we have received about reliance on "the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine."  So the counsel we have given on this point is, I think, sound and reasonable.  

I note, however, that the foregoing points of counsel are susceptible to abuse by dissidents and critics, who may seize upon such remarks and use them as some sort of carte blanche to publicly disagree and defy the Brethren on any issue they (the critics/dissidents) deem significant, and also to work to persuade members of the Church to listen to them rather than the Brethren.  Hence we end up with substantial disagreements over socially popular themes like same-sex marriage, female ordination, and so on.  And with the advent of the Internet, critics and dissidents have markedly increased opportunities to persuade members of the Church to accept their point of view on such issues, and to ignore or disregard the counsel given to us by the Brethren, and to instead adopt the preferences of the self-selected few who have set themselves up as alternative voices of authority.

I don't think this is what the Lord has in mind for His people.  I don't think the wise words given above were intended to give critics and dissidents leave to speak evil of the Lord's anointed, to set themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to the Brethren, or to foment discord and disunity in the Church.

So I think the Church really does teach that we have "freedom to figure out for ourselves whether or not our leaders are inspired and whether or not we should be obedient."  This is exemplified in 2 Nephi 2:27:

Quote

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and call things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

And Moses 6:56:

Quote

And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment.

And Helaman 14:30:

Quote

And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So, that means the conversation should be shut down?

Of course not.  But it makes the conversation circular and pointless.
Is there ANYTHING that anyone on this board could say that would convince you that polygamy came from God?
There is nothing anyone could say to convince me that it was made up by Joseph for nefarious purposes.
So we quote the same half dozen scriptures at each other, tell the same stories designed to shock that long ago lost any shock value, and do nothing to build up or break down a testimony.

Really, what amazing insights are going to come out of a rehash of "is polygamy from God" for the millionth time?
 

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Of course not.  But it makes the conversation circular and pointless.
Is there ANYTHING that anyone on this board could say that would convince you that polygamy came from God?
There is nothing anyone could say to convince me that it was made up by Joseph for nefarious purposes.
So we quote the same half dozen scriptures at each other, tell the same stories designed to shock that long ago lost any shock value, and do nothing to build up or break down a testimony.

Really, what amazing insights are going to come out of a rehash of "is polygamy from God" for the millionth time?
 

You realize you can make that argument for every doctrinal debate on the Internet, right?

Edited December 29, 2017 by ttribe

[Bob Crockett]

39 minutes ago, Duncan said:

A couple of things perhaps about why of all of this polygamy and other issues

“If we are serious about our discipleship, Jesus will eventually request each of us to do those very things which are most difficult for us to do.”

Elder Neal A. Maxwell. A Time to Choose (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1972), 46.

 

 "I heard the Prophet Joseph Smith say to the Twelve, 'You will have all kinds of troubles and trials to pass through. And it is quite as necessary for you to be tried, even as Abraham and other men of God.' And said he, 'God will feel after you and he will take hold of you and wrench your very heart strings. And if you cannot stand it, you will not be fit for an inheritance in the Celestial Kingdom of God.'" (John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24, p. 197.)

Plus DC 101 about being tried even as Abraham. 

i don't believe for a minute God called his church to practice plural marriage to give them something difficult to do.

It was a divine principle and Joseph Smith was called upon to restore all things.  This was one of them.  Thank goodness it was for only a few years.

[blueglass]

47 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am sorry if I did not make it clear.  I would be happy to include all of it. Not just your cherry picked quotes. 

Let Lucy speak for herself.   She was a big girl and doesn't need you to edit her comments.

Will you discuss the cherry picked quote from Lucy's own words that she felt "tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable"?  As you said before you claim that Lucy's own words do not contradict that Joseph took advantage of her - so engage the words I provided.  Let's hear it.  

[blueglass]

Deleting - 

Edited December 29, 2017 by blueglass

[Darren10]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Did it ever occur to you that the Old Testament was written by men? Men who lived in a culture where women were treated like property?  If so, you want to describe those actions of David taking many additional wives and "concubines" as being consistent with the commands of a moral God?  I'm sorry, but I have a really big problem with women being used as "rewards" for any man, no matter how "righteous" he may (allegedly) be; there's just something fundamentally wrong with that.

Sure that's ocurred to me. It's also ocurred to me that to some, it us not only OK but somehow "better" that government treats us all like property so far as marriage goes. So long as we're treated equally as property, It's OK. 

There's a lot of married folks here who are married. How many think God gave their spouse go him or her? Why was David any different? Yes, God can give a man women as a reward. He also took them from David for disobedience and allowed some extremely terrible things to happen to them. I don't think we should focus on why He did all He did with David. I don't think it's possible to understand it fully. I think It's important that when God declares His word, it is absolute. He is not boy d by the things we mortals are boy by. By definition, finite beings cannot fully understand an infinite being so don't try. 

My post to JulieM was to show that the Bible does connect God to the practice of polygamy, nothing more. 

[Danzo]

24 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Will you discuss the cherry picked quote from Lucy's own words that she felt "tempted and tortured beyond endureance until life was not desirable"?  As you said before you claim that Lucy's own words do not contradict that Joseph took advantage of her - so engage the words I provided.  Let's hear it.  

I Your problem is that you don't want to discuss everything she says, just what you want her to have said.

Read what she wrote.  All of it.

This isn't that hard. Lucy deserves to have her story told . . .  All of it.

 

"Supreme happiness took possession of me, and I received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of plural marriage, which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the joy and gratitude that filled my soul."

 

In the exact same account!!!

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by Danzo

[JLHPROF]

50 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You realize you can make that argument for every doctrinal debate on the Internet, right?

Of course.
And I love a good doctrinal debate.  But this one is circular.  Plural marriage is a canonized doctrine of the LDS Church.  Members and non-members alike have to decide what that says to them.
All religion is an issue of faith, starting with whether you even believe there is a God or not.
As fun as debate is, you cannot prove/disprove religion or doctrine academically.  That includes polygamy.  Either D&C 132 was God speaking to us through Joseph or it wasn't.  Either God sending an angel to Hagar to return to a polygamous relationship happened or it didn't.  Either Jacob 2 is right that God can command polygamy or he can't.  Either God promised to give David plural wives as a blessing or he didn't.  Either God sent his spirit to witness to Lucy Walker that she should marry Joseph or he didn't.

These are not academic questions.  We can debate but we cannot arrive at a real conclusion in any way other than by faith.  But polygamy is still a true doctrine according to the Church of which I am a member.

Edited December 29, 2017 by JLHPROF

[blueglass]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I Your problem is that you don't want to discuss everything she says, just what you want her to have said.

Read what she wrote.  All of it.

This isn't that hard. Lucy deserves to have her story told . . .  All of it.

 

"Supreme happiness took possession of me, and I received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of plural marriage, which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the joy and gratitude that filled my soul."

 

In the exact same account!!!

 

 

 

Ok ok got it, you want to discuss the happy part, not the suicidal ideation part.   

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Ok ok got it, you want to discuss the happy part, not the suicidal ideation part.   

All of it. It is in the same account.  

"

In the year 1842, President Joseph Smith sought an interview with me, and said: “I have a message for you. I have been commanded of God to take another wife, and you are the woman.” My astonishment knew no bounds. This announcement was indeed a thunderbolt to me. He asked me if I believed him to be a prophet of God. “Most assuredly I do,” I replied. He fully explained to me the principle of plural or celestial marriage. He said this principle was again to be restored for the benefit of the human family, that it would prove an everlasting blessing to my father’s house, and form a chain that could never be broken, worlds without end. “What have you to say?” he asked. “Nothing.” How could I speak, or what could I say? He said, “If you will pray sincerely for light and understanding in relation thereto, you shall receive a testimony of the correctness of this principle. I thought I prayed sincerely, but was so unwilling to consider the matter favorably that I fear I did not ask in faith for light. Gross darkness instead of light took possession of my mind. I was tempted and tortured beyond endurance until life was not desirable. Oh that the grave would kindly receive me, that I might find rest on the bosom of my dear mother. Why should I be chosen from among thy daughters, Father, I am only a child in years and experience, no mother to counsel [she died in January, 1842]; no father near to tell me what to do in this trying hour [he was on a mission to a warmer climate to help his health]. Oh, let this bitter cup pass. And thus I prayed in the agony of my soul.

The Prophet discerned my sorrow. He saw how unhappy I was, and sought an opportunity of again speaking to me on this subject, and said: “Although I cannot, under existing circumstances, acknowledge you as my wife, the time is near when we will go beyond the Rocky Mountains and then you will be acknowledged and honored as my wife.”⁵ He also said, “This principle will yet be believed in and practiced by the righteous. I have no flattering words to offer. It is a command of God to you. I will give you until tomorrow to decide this matter. If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you.”

This aroused every drop of Scotch in my veins. For a few moments I stood fearless before him, and looked him in the eye. I felt at this moment that I was called to place myself upon the altar a living sacrifice–perhaps to brook the world in disgrace and incur the displeasure and contempt of my youthful companions; all my dreams of happiness blown to the four winds. This was too much, for as yet no shadow had crossed my path, aside from the death of my dear mother. The future to me had been one bright, cloudless day. I had been speechless, but at last found utterance and said: “Although you are a prophet of God you could not induce me to take a step of so great importance, unless I knew that God approved my course. I would rather die. I have tried to pray but received no comfort, no light,” and emphatically forbid him speaking again to me on this subject. Every feeling of my soul revolted against it. Said I, “The same God who has sent this message is the Being I have worshipped from my early childhood and He must manifest His will to me.” He walked across the room, returned and stood before me with the most beautiful expression of countenance, and said: “God Almighty bless you. You shall have a manifestation of the will of God concerning you; a testimony that you can never deny. I will tell you what it shall be. It shall be that joy and peace that you never knew.”

Oh, how earnestly I prayed for these words to be fulfilled. It was near dawn after another sleepless night when my room was lighted up by a heavenly influence. To me it was, in comparison, like the brilliant sun bursting through the darkest cloud. The words of the Prophet were indeed fulfilled. My soul was filled with a calm, sweet peace that “I never knew.” Supreme happiness took possession of me, and I received a powerful and irresistible testimony of the truth of plural marriage, which has been like an anchor to the soul through all the trials of life. I felt that I must go out into the morning air and give vent to the joy and gratitude that filled my soul. As I descended the stairs, President Smith opened the door below, took me by the hand and said: “Thank God, you have the testimony. I too have prayed.” He led me to a chair, placed his hands upon my head, and blessed me with every blessing my heart could possibly desire.

The first day of May, 1843, I consented to become the Prophet’s wife, and was sealed to him for time and all eternity, at his own house by Elder William Clayton."

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Ok ok got it, you want to discuss the happy part, not the suicidal ideation part.   

Complete misrepresentation of what he said.

[ttribe]

28 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Sure that's ocurred to me. It's also ocurred to me that to some, it us not only OK but somehow "better" that government treats us all like property so far as marriage goes. So long as we're treated equally as property, It's OK. 

There's a lot of married folks here who are married. How many think God gave their spouse go him or her? Why was David any different? Yes, God can give a man women as a reward. He also took them from David for disobedience and allowed some extremely terrible things to happen to them. I don't think we should focus on why He did all He did with David. I don't think it's possible to understand it fully. I think It's important that when God declares His word, it is absolute. He is not boy d by the things we mortals are boy by. By definition, finite beings cannot fully understand an infinite being so don't try. 

My post to JulieM was to show that the Bible does connect God to the practice of polygamy, nothing more. 

Your reference to government is both strange and a false equivalent.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Ok ok got it, you want to discuss the happy part, not the suicidal ideation part.   

Ok ok I got it, you want to focus on the misery and difficulty of learning about plural marriage, not the heavenly comfort and confirmation part.

How appropriate for this time of year.

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Darren10 said:

There were indeed failings from the “polygamy experiment”, especially since it was a very trying experience for many, especially for women. Also, no doubt polygamy placed the LDS Church in very desperate social circumstances. But, “the whole” experience? Great men and women were forged from polygamy. Brigham Young and Zina Jacobs are prime examples of this. You go ahead and attempt to accomplish what they did and endure even a small portion of their trials. The Snow and Kimball lines were also forged in polygamy. Polygamy was intrumental in influencing generations of great men and women. 

Frederick Douglass was a great man, and a former slave. That doesn't make slavery worthwhile in any sense. You don't need minor social evils like polygamy or great social evils like slavery to forge great men and women.

Polygamy was an albatross around the neck of the church, and lead to all kinds of other evils in the attempt to keep the practice going contrary to the law.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Gray

[TOmNossor]

On 12/28/2017 at 11:36 AM, DBMormon said:

While this historical story has been largely ignored, I think it is the most important story in all of Mormonism. bigger than the Book of Abraham, bigger than Helen Mar Kimball and Fanny Alger, bigger than first vision accounts, and Race and Priesthood.

I have only read a few of the responses so far, but the only way this can be the "most important story in all of Mormonism" is if Mormonism is a fraud and this is the proof of it.

It may be more problematic in your mind than the origins of the Book of Abraham (which is the most problematic thing I see), but since I am a believer there are MANY things that are far more important concerning Mormonism than Lucy Walker or the BOA.

I am sorry that the wonder that is the Book of Mormon, the amazing witness that you may or may not have received from God, the faith of millions of LDS who move mountains for God year after year, and so many other things is not the "most important story in all of Mormonism" for you.  I hope you can think about the perspective you offer here.  Where you sow your seeds determines your harvest.  Don Bradley has a wonderful testimony about his return to the CoJCoLDS.  He has done more polygamy research than probably any LDS scholar (probably including Todd Compton).  I am pretty sure the bulk of this research was conducted while Don was a non-member (Don could elaborate).  But, a not wholly incorrect way of expressing his view is that when he began to allow that the BIGGEST Mormon story was not the secular historical read of data where the supernatural was excluded, he found the BIGGEST Mormon story was that there was remarkable divine interactions in that Mormon history.

So, my position is that if the Book of Mormon came from God, I must fit the ACCOUNTS of Lucy Walker into a framework that is true to the FACT that the BOM came from God.

I personally strongly lean toward the view that there was communication from God to Joseph associated with Polygamy.  I am thankful that I do not need to live polygamy (and also thankful that I am not a sub-par man in a polygamous community without a single wife as my socially awkward lot might be).  I lean towards the view that there was communication from God to Joseph associated with Lucy Walker.  I think you read too much into the history of "as a daughter" when we really have very little understanding of the dynamics of the relationship.  But, I am open to ideas associated with non-consummated sealing or consummated sealing, more or less "as a daughter" original relationship, and even some misunderstanding of specifics on the part of God's prophet Joseph Smith (he was fallible).

What is clear from the polygamy PROBLEM is that Joseph did not seek to gratify his libido.  History is IMO clear enough that Joseph's polygamy was not begun so Joseph could have lots of sex.  If he was not a prophet, he was quite brilliant enough to enact schemes through which he would have lots of sex; and he didn't have lots of sex.  That seems quite clear to me.

All that I said above has been said before EXCEPT for ...

You calling this the "most important story in all of Mormonism" says something about your relationship with God's church.  I am happy to worship with you whenever you come through Baltimore Maryland, but I fear if this is the "most important story in all of Mormonism" for you, there is something profoundly missing in your Mormonism.  I hope you can think about that.

Charity, TOm

Edited December 30, 2017 by TOmNossor

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Frederick Douglass was a great man, and a former slave. That doesn't make slavery worthwhile in any sense. You don't need minor social evils like polygamy or great social evils like slavery to forge great men and women.

Polygamy was an albatross around the neck of the church, and lead to all kinds of other evils in the attempt to keep the practice going contrary to the law.

I love Frederick Douglas. Very inspiring. He became great in spite of slavery, not because of it.

 Equating slavery to polygamy is absurd. This is especially true with the fact that the women of the Church routinely voted to preserve polygamy. I cannot think of very many Negroes (using 19th a century terminology which Douglas himself used) who voted to preserve slavery. 

I wrote a paper in college once on Frederick Douglas. Great man. Lincoln was very side to let him into his circles. 

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I love Frederick Douglas. Very inspiring. He became great in spite of slavery, not because of it.

 Equating slavery to polygamy is absurd. This is especially true with the fact that the women of the Church routinely voted to preserve polygamy. I cannot think of very many Negroes (using 19th a century terminology which Douglas himself used) who voted to preserve slavery. 

I wrote a paper in college once on Frederick Douglas. Great man. Lincoln was very side to let him into his circles. 

Mormonism succeeded in spite of polygamy. Had it not given it up, it would have become a tiny fundamentalist clan, like the FLDS.

Polygamy is the other relic of barbarism, along with slavery.

[Tacenda]

33 minutes ago, Gray said:

Mormonism succeeded in spite of polygamy. Had it not given it up, it would have become a tiny fundamentalist clan, like the FLDS.

Polygamy is the other relic of barbarism, along with slavery.

I remember reading something to the effect that Joseph Smith said he was wrong to introduce polygamy and said it near his death. Not saying this is true though, I think it was secondhand information. Also, some believe it's the reason Joseph was killed and God wanted it that way. I don't know that I believe that either.

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Mormonism succeeded in spite of polygamy. Had it not given it up, it would have become a tiny fundamentalist clan, like the FLDS.

Polygamy is the other relic of barbarism, along with slavery.

Ignoring what I said about women of the Church routinely voting to preserve polygamy, both paragraphs you wrote are true. But unlike slavery you cannot argue that polygamy has no role in God's plan is salvation. This is especially true when doing so within a Mormon lense in that marriage is essential to obtain the highest of salvation. Unlike slavery, I am convinced it will be back. Just a question of when. I say it'll be during the Millenium. At that point feel free to join with those who cannot see how God can morally support polygamy. You'll have the freedom to do so. 

Edited December 30, 2017 by Darren10

[Gray]

50 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Ignoring what I said about women of the Church routinely voting to preserve polygamy, both paragraphs you wrote are true. But unlike slavery you cannot argue that polygamy has no role in God's plan is salvation. This is especially true when doing so within a Mormon lense in that marriage is essential to obtain the highest of salvation. Unlike slavery, I am convinced it will be back. Just a question of when. I say it'll be during the Millenium. At that point feel free to join with those who cannot see how God can morally support polygamy. You'll have the freedom to do so. 

Some women also fought against women's suffrage. Human psychology is often a strange, alien landscape.