Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

So what DID polygamy accomplish,


JLH

Recommended Posts

joep:

Census data refutes the old lie that there were more women than men.

joe:

I wuz trying to get authentic census info to de-bunk the LDS claim that Nauvoo was the largest city in the state (population). Please tell me where I can locate reliable info for Nauvoo around mid 1840's.

God is Love

Link to comment

asked with a slightly different perspective, JLH's question could have been (apologies tendered-extended) 'was polygamy beneficial to the rank-and-file saints; including both those who participated, and those who did not?'

Another question might be: (forgive me here) was the 'restoration of all things' (including such practices as P) something that benefits the saints on an everday (earthly), practical basis?

me: when I took the mish lessons, I was told that wearing g's would protect wearers from injuries. When I was at Ricks a few years later, my frat pres succomed to injuries from an auto accident sustained while wearing his g's. It was a shock to me.

Link to comment

Now there is an author I can trust, Dallin H. Oaks, master spin doctor of all things LDS.

So because Dallin Oaks is a now a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, it doesn't matter that he was a law clerk to a U.S. Supreme court justice, was a law professor at one of the nation's most prestigous law schools, executive director of the American Bar Foundation, and supreme court justice in the state of Utah. His many years of experience and his exceptional legal mind are a moot point because he now serves on the Council of the Twelve?

Link to comment

If you want to discuss the death of JS please get your own thread. It's not hard to do.

Polygamy did not increase the population any faster. You can't expand the populations faster than the women can reproduce. For example: I have two mosquito populations. In one I have one male and 100 females, in the other I have 1 female and 100 males. The first population will expand more rapidly because there will be 100 batches of babies from that one male. The second can have only one batch of eggs no matter how many males there are.

If the ratio of male to female was even remotely close, polygamy would have simply forced men out of the marriage pool, rather than increased the population.

Link to comment

Sorry JP... wifey pulled the plug on the computer and wisked me off to bed.

So where where we... Oh yes...

Dead men don't purger themselves on witness stands and get payed for assasinations. That is... unless they have eaten a little crow the night before for supper.

:P

And you never did answer... Why are "Biblical Christians" purpetuating a lie?

Im reminded of Fathers Abraham and Isaac... who "lied" (technically they didn't) to bring Gods jugement on the kings of their time. Well did the angel speak.

Rev 14

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to dpreach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every enation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

Jugement has come on Babylon.

Link to comment

Polygamy was not about increasing the population rapidly, it was about increasing the population of the FAITHFUL rapidly. Monogamy would not have done this. Only polygamy could have achieved this. At that time, the Lord needed his best and brightest reproducing, raising children, and teaching said children the gospel.

Link to comment

Hi Stormin... :angry:

Polygamy was not about increasing the population rapidly, it was about increasing the population of the FAITHFUL rapidly. Monogamy would not have done this. Only polygamy could have achieved this. At that time, the Lord needed his best and brightest reproducing, raising children, and teaching said children the gospel.

Ahhh..... :P Trying to remain calm here... :ph34r: Doing a little deep breathing...

A couple of things.

Why does one assume that the young men of this time were not faithful? I think this idea REALLY is demeaning to the young men of the day.

I don't see polygamous men exactly helping to raise their children.... :blink:

It seems to me that most polygmous wives were basically single parents....

Why does anyone think polygamous men were the best and brightest? Hmmm...

But lets say it is true that there were no nice, decent, loving, faithful young men... :unsure:

Seems to me that if God wanted children to be raised in good homes God could come up with something else besides this fiasco....

How about inspiring and directing young couples as they parent?

How about a scripture or two encouraging good parenting skills?

How about some church leaders actually parenting children as an example of good parenting?

How about providing support for young couples?

How about making priesthood blessings more powerful so the young men could have a blessing to become faithful?

How about raising the survival rate of infants?

<_<

Off to yoga class... cool.gif

~dancer~

Link to comment
I asked this question on the "plural marriage" thread a couple of days ago and it seems like a very good question yet brings so much avoidance from the lds posters.

What did God/Joseph Smith accomplish with polygamy that could not have been accomplished via monagamy with the D&C 132 (whenever it became official)?

Is it fair to look at the claims of religious leaders to see if they pass the "outrageous belief" standard in context with the time declared? I think so.

Look at Brian David Mitchell. He made that same claims as Joseph Smith in many ways. Yet because of the "outrageous belief" standard, he is considered a nut. But polygamy was considered no less outrageous during Smiths/Young claim that it came from God than was Mitchell's claim in his escapade with Elizabeth Smart. Both Mitchell's and Smith's actions were against the law and the respective moral standards of the times.

So why is it not reasonable to ask:

What did God/Joseph Smith accomplish with polygamy that could not have been accomplished via monagamy with the D&C 132 (whenever it became official)?

Is it any less "outrageous" than what Mitchell claimed a couple of years ago and can it not be compared on the same basis?

Nothing . I dont see what bloodline has to do with anything.

Matthew 3:9

And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

Link to comment

Except for the fact that Blood lines identify the children of promise. Otherwise Christs Lineage would be ingnored in the Gospels. It proves he was the stem of Jesse prophecies of in Isaiah 11... but who was the "rod" out of "his roots" that was to rule in the final days?

That is the question.

Link to comment

One biggy - and we see it here in every debate on the topic.

Polygamy is a great doctrine that helps weed out those who are more in tune with the current views of culture. Plural marriage has been "taboo" in western culture for a long time, yet it was not taboo in the bible. Here is a doctrine, like sacrament, or allowing the consumption of pork in the early days of Christianity, that helped seperate out those who were more concerned with following the standards of the day as opposed to following the Lord.

Link to comment
If the ratio of male to female was even remotely close, polygamy would have simply forced men out of the marriage pool, rather than increased the population.

Were there a lot of single men durring polygamy? If not then the ratio could not have been the same.

I have two mosquito populations.

Don't you worry about getting bitten?

Jerm :P

Link to comment

Hi E...... :unsure:

Polygamy is a great doctrine that helps weed out those who are more in tune with the current views of culture. Plural marriage has been "taboo" in western culture for a long time, yet it was not taboo in the bible. Here is a doctrine, like sacrament, or allowing the consumption of pork in the early days of Christianity, that helped seperate out those who were more concerned with following the standards of the day as opposed to following the Lord.

Ohhh... :P

This is difficult.

Personally I don't think not eating pork is quite in the same league as polygamy!!!

<_<

It seems to me if Christ wanted to have a difficult doctrine by which the Saints must abide to separate out the true followers, he would not pick something that went against one's sense of morality, decency and ethical standards.

It is as if Christ would pick slavery, racism or child abuse as a requirement of behaviour to see what Saints are the good ones... ahhhh this line of reasoning just doesn't work for me. :angry:

(This reminds me of a story I watched on the History channel of some high ranking Nazi official (IIRC who was an assistant to Hitler) who "demanded" certain troops have affairs so as to increase the ideal race. The men refused! And the decree was withdrawn).

Not saying I'm right but I hope if there is a God this isn't the type of thing God would do.

:ph34r:

~dancer~

Link to comment
Guest johnny_cat
It is as if Christ would pick slavery, racism or child abuse as a requirement of behaviour to see what Saints are the good ones... ahhhh this line of reasoning just doesn't work for me.

I don't know. He once commanded someone to kill his own child.

I don't pretend to know the reasons for it, but as a practical matter, it did tend to be a weeding influence in that people had to decide whether their faith was strong enough to swallow their sense of morality. Brigham Young spoke of having been at a funeral shortly after learning about "the principle" and wishing it was him in the casket. It also had the practical result of setting church members apart from the rest of the world.

Are these the reasons? Only God knows.

Link to comment

Hi Johnny .... <_<

I don't know. He once commanded someone to kill his own child.

Yes... another reason why I don't believe in the God of the Bible!! cool.gif

I just don't see God in this way.

I see the God of the OT as a reflection of the men of the time and their desire to know the unknowable.

Even if God did command humans to hurt, harm, kill each other, I still don't think I would much want to worship this sort of God so I'm pretty OK with not being with God in heaven if this is ultimate truth.

Just my opinion,

:P

~dancer~

Link to comment
Guest johnny_cat

Obviously, truth_dancer, you don't accept the God of the Bible. My response was just to your idea that Christ wouldn't do that. It may not be something your vision of God would do, but it's certainly not out of character with the God of the Bible.

But, my point was that, intentions aside, those were some of the results of polygyny. My family history is full of interesting and sometimes painful stories of polygyny. These also are the practical results of the principle.

Hope all is going great for you.

Link to comment
Polygamy was not about increasing the population rapidly, it was about increasing the population of the FAITHFUL rapidly. Monogamy would not have done this. Only polygamy could have achieved this. At that time, the Lord needed his best and brightest reproducing, raising children, and teaching said children the gospel.

Stormin, are you saying that my Great Grantfather who came from Europe was NOT worthy? What an absurity. Hmm...I guess there were only a handful of true, faithful pioneers. I guess the less faithful ones never made the trip to Utah, never endured in Navuoo, never sacraficed all they had for the building of the temple....how do we know they were NOT failthful and NOT worthy? Cause they didnt practice Polygamy....lol..laughable...

Link to comment
This is difficult.

Personally I don't think not eating pork is quite in the same league as polygamy!!!

To a pork chop lover - I see where it would be difficult to understand. To a jew living 2000 years ago this would be blasphamy (while ironically polygamy would be no big deal).

It seems to me if Christ wanted to have a difficult doctrine by which the Saints must abide to separate out the true followers, he would not pick something that went against one's sense of morality, decency and ethical standards.

He did teach hard doctrine that caused many to leave Him while He was on Earth. Teaching "ritualized canabolism" would be extremely hard doctrine to accept. It is easy for us because we have over 1000 years of Christian tradition in our culture. Imagine what it was like for the first ones that heard it taught!

It is as if Christ would pick slavery, racism or child abuse as a requirement of behaviour to see what Saints are the good ones... ahhhh this line of reasoning just doesn't work for me.

These issues were wrong in the bible as well (except one could argue for slavery/racism using the bible). Polygamy has firm support that it was accepted by God in the bible. To say the church has to be false because of polygamy ignores the ancient prophets and there practice of plural marriage. Also I think I should clarify that I don't think God gives us commandments just to test our faith (like He did with Abraham) but that He gives us commandments to bless us if we are faithful to them. Unfortunately sometimes God's laws go against the grain of what society teaches - this is where seperation can occure. Those that hold more dearly the values of their society than the commandments of God will fall away - one can not serve two masters.

The whole key is knowing from God, if they are his commands and not trusting in man alone.

Link to comment

Hi E.... <_<

These issues were wrong in the bible as well (except one could argue for slavery/racism using the bible).

Killing one's child seemed to be OK with God as did slavery, racism, polygamy, concubines, etc. etc. etc.

To say the church has to be false because of polygamy ignores the ancient prophets and there practice of plural marriage.
/

My personal reasoning is NOT that the church is false because of polygamy.

If one studies the origin of marriage and patriarchy one comes to realize that marriage was about ownership of women... wives, concubines, slaves were all possessions of their owner. What we see in the OT is a reflection of what was going on in patriarchal societies a few thousand years ago. I personally don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with God.

Also I think I should clarify that I don't think God gives us commandments just to test our faith (like He did with Abraham)

Good!!! :unsure:

but that He gives us commandments to bless us if we are faithful to them. Unfortunately sometimes God's laws go against the grain of what society teaches - this is where seperation can occure. Those that hold more dearly the values of their society than the commandments of God will fall away - one can not serve two masters.

Is it going against what society teaches or going against what ones knows to be right and holy in one's heart?

I would suggest that most people, for example do not feel it is right to kill their child. Did it occur historically? Yes. Does it make it holy? No.

The whole key is knowing from God, if they are his commands and not trusting in man alone.

Yes... but IMO, it actually all comes down to trusting a man. One must believe Abraham when he said God told him to kill his son. One must believe JS when he stated that he was to marry other men's wives.

I understand that many suggest they received conformation by the HG but I would suggest that humans have the capacity to receive witnesses of the HG/angels/spirit guides/Gods/ancestors/spirits, etc. etc. etc..... for all sorts of things.

I just think it is not wise or holy to follow those who suggest that what is right or good or holy or commanded of God, goes against what feels right/holy/pure/decent/moral in ones heart and mind.

But, I understand that many believe whatever a prophet states is of God and must be right. I know some who would probably kill their child if a prophet told them God commanded it. Obviously there were those who would give their wives to JS because they thought it was a requirement.

As I said, this may be how God works. I find it difficult (OK, impossible :P ) to follow or worship such a God.

Just how I see it...

:ph34r:

~dancer~

Link to comment

Hi Johnny.... <_<

Obviously, truth_dancer, you don't accept the God of the Bible. My response was just to your idea that Christ wouldn't do that. It may not be something your vision of God would do, but it's certainly not out of character with the God of the Bible.

Oooohh... that is saying much!!! :P

But, my point was that, intentions aside, those were some of the results of polygyny. My family history is full of interesting and sometimes painful stories of polygyny. These also are the practical results of the principle.

One of the most amazing aspects of the universe, IMO, is the way EVERYTHING no matter how horrible, brings forth something new. I think it is in the overcoming of those things that are most difficult that the consciousness of humankind better understands compassion, love, kindness, and unity.

So, IMO, I can look on the most horrific things that have ever taken place upon the earth and know that in some incredible way, they helped expand/develop the self awareness and compassion that exists in the universe.

I think the fact that society rose up and basically demanded that polygamy be stopped is actually a sign of the heightened care and compassion for women and children that evolved over the millennia. IMO, it speaks of a desire (conciousness) for women to be treated as human beings, with dignity, respect, honor, and equality.

I'm glad for all those who are here on the earth due to polygamy. :unsure: (what would the FAIR board be without ya'll?) I'm also glad for all those who are here due to whatever form of partnering created them, whether it was monogamy, single people who had a child, parents who chose to use artificial means, or whatever.

I Hope all is going great for you too!!! :ph34r:

~dancer~

Link to comment

Polygamy was not about increasing the population rapidly, it was about increasing the population of the FAITHFUL rapidly. Monogamy would not have done this. Only polygamy could have achieved this. At that time, the Lord needed his best and brightest reproducing, raising children, and teaching said children the gospel. (end of quote)

There were plenty of males around (so say others according to census figures)...Were these men (sometimes husbands!) incapable of fathering these children? Is THAT what they were told "MOVE OVER! It's MY TURN!"

Simply disgusting, considering what happened as a result.

this gives 'investigators' a sense of plausible deniability regarding the track record of the church...apparently GBH now refuses to talk about it. (lesson There???)

Link to comment
Guest joepalmeto
This gives 'investigators' a sense of plausible deniability regarding the track record of the church...apparently GBH now refuses to talk about it.

Let's see what President Hinkley had to say about the HISTORY of POLYGAMY in his church during an interview with Brother King, aired September 8, 1998:

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale. :Pcomment: I guess he does not know about Nauvoo.. oh wait, maybe he meant WEST OF PALMYRA??

Larry King: You could have a certain amount of...

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists. <_<comment:I guess he has not heard of the FLDS???

Larry King: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is. comment: Doin' what he does best, "I DON'T KNOW" :unsure:

Link to comment

Larry King: Now the big story raging in Utah -- before we get back to morals and morals, is -- the big story, if you don't know it, is polygamy in Utah; there's been major charges. The governor, Mike Leavitt, says that there are legal reasons why the state of Utah has not prosecuted alleged polygamists. Leavitt said plural marriage may be protected by the First Amendment. He is the great-great-grandson -- is the governor -- of a polygamist. First tell me about the church and polygamy. When it started it allowed it?

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale. comment: I guess he does not know about Nauvoo.. oh wait, maybe he meant WEST OF PALMYRA??

Obviously west means Utah.

:P

Larry King: You could have a certain amount of...

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from -- between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.

Larry King: But when the word is mentioned, when you hear the word, you think Mormon, right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: You do it mistakenly. They have no connection with us whatever. They don't belong to the church. There are actually no Mormon fundamentalists. comment:I guess he has not heard of the FLDS???

There are no "MORMON" fundimentalists. FLDS are not members of the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They would be excommunicated if found out.

Larry King: Are you surprised that there's, apparently, a lot of polygamy in Utah?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have seen the thing grow somewhat. I don't know how much it is. I don't know how pervasive it is. comment: Doin' what he does best, "I DON'T KNOW"

Hmmm... what do you want him to do... Go grab his pich fork and hun them down? Sneak into their house in the middle of the night to see if they are copulating? <_<

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...