mfbukowski Posted January 1 Posted January 1 2 hours ago, Calm said: My guess is those who believe Brigham lied about plural marriage don’t see him as a prophet, only Joseph….especially those who think Brigham conspired to kill Joseph to take his place (this is too often where the Joseph was a monogamist arguments lead to these days). Quite a few of these proponents are leaving the Church and joining Snuffer’s or other groups or just doing their own version. Phil Davis of the Doctrine of Christ group may be the one who got the latest surge in anti polygamy interest among members really going, I haven’t followed it close enough to be sure of that. Snuffer was pushing it, but Davis added the Brigham Young murdered Joseph Smith plot (even made a movie about it). https://religiondispatches.org/a-new-mormon-religion-has-taken-qanon-conspiracies-and-canonized-them-as-doctrine/ So this appears to support the view that a "false prophet" indicates a loss of authority in the priesthood, so how can we claim it does NOT happen for Mormons, but DOES apply for Catholic "false " Popes?
Calm Posted January 1 Posted January 1 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: So this appears to support the view that a "false prophet" indicates a loss of authority in the priesthood, so how can we claim it does NOT happen for Mormons, but DOES apply for Catholic "false " Popes? Who is claiming it can’t?
Calm Posted January 1 Posted January 1 (edited) 1 hour ago, webbles said: The website in the OP seemed to push the angle that polygamy was just another invalid doctrine from Brigham Young, like Adam-God and the priesthood ban. Not that he was a false prophet. But that might have just been an attempt to make it easier to digest for readers vs saying Brigham was a false prophet. I assume there is a spectrum of belief on this. Unfortunately it appears to be a gateway that once entered moves only one way from my perspective (what I have seen), but hopefully that is only because the most verbal ones that came to my notice are those who have left the faith. Edited January 1 by Calm
mfbukowski Posted January 1 Posted January 1 33 minutes ago, Calm said: Who is claiming it can’t? Those who believe it. Seems like an odd question. I am not understanding your question
Calm Posted January 2 Posted January 2 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Those who believe it. Seems like an odd question. I am not understanding your question I am not understanding your comment.
PortalToParis Posted January 4 Author Posted January 4 On 12/29/2023 at 5:07 PM, Calm said: Initially, were they breaking the laws of the land though? They were not seeking legal recognition of the marriages iirc. Any not-legally-sanctioned-by-marriage 'sneaking around' was illegal under the laws against fornication and adultery: "After a ******* child's birth, a trial for fornication or adultery usually followed.[2] "
PortalToParis Posted January 4 Author Posted January 4 I see that it censored the quote on my previous post, as it used the older, more crass word for "illegitimate": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_American_bastardy_laws
Calm Posted January 4 Posted January 4 9 minutes ago, PortalToParis said: Any not-legally-sanctioned-by-marriage 'sneaking around' was illegal under the laws against fornication and adultery: "After a ******* child's birth, a trial for fornication or adultery usually followed.[2] " States and territories vary in laws, colonial laws may or may not have been adopted by territories and states that were created later. I wonder if you can find the laws at the time for Illinois. I have looked and couldn’t find that time period or earlier iirc.
Calm Posted January 4 Posted January 4 (edited) 32 minutes ago, PortalToParis said: I see that it censored the quote on my previous post, as it used the older, more crass word for "illegitimate": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_American_bastardy_laws The site has a lot of automatic editing that does not apply to this board that much due to the service the owner uses to host the board (or whatever you call it). The most annoying one is D i c k that gets edited even when it’s part of a name like ****inson. We can always figure it out by context imo, but if you don’t want to leave your readers that way, then using a * for a vowel usually works well. Edited January 4 by Calm 1
PortalToParis Posted January 4 Author Posted January 4 8 minutes ago, Calm said: States and territories vary in laws, colonial laws may or may not have been adopted by territories and states that were created later. I wonder if you can find the laws at the time for Illinois. I have looked and couldn’t find that time period or earlier iirc. I know that the "Voice of Innocence" document refers to "the crime of fornication", so that's something - although it's of course not a legal source.
Calm Posted January 4 Posted January 4 (edited) 27 minutes ago, PortalToParis said: I know that the "Voice of Innocence" document refers to "the crime of fornication", so that's something - although it's of course not a legal source. The problem is if they are assuming it exists for that time period rather than actually knowing the law. My guess is it does, but I think it unwise and unkind to accuse someone of a crime when it’s not and I think it better to be sure something is a crime before labeling it as such. Back to the website’s argument… Early Saints practicing plural marriage obviously didn’t see it as adultery or fornication (after all they were married) and so would likely have dismissed the application of the law. To argue that religious marriage was illegal when they iirc saw it as something the law didn’t address one way or the other and therefore it was legal to engage is not to argue God’s laws are higher than man’s laws. Once laws against such marriages were made, then iirc they switched to arguing the law was unconstitutional (which in my very uneducated opinion it likely was as formulated), but the law isn’t retroactive. Edited January 4 by Calm
Calm Posted January 4 Posted January 4 On 12/29/2023 at 2:25 PM, Calm said: Is this Michelle Stone or someone else? Portal, you may have missed this post or just don’t know, but if you are aware of who the author it, it would be helpful.
webbles Posted January 4 Posted January 4 (edited) You can see the Illinois law at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433009071873&seq=233. It is page 233 of the PDF, page 221 of the actual book. Section 123 of the Criminal Code discusses adultery. Quote Any man and woman who shall live together in an open state of adultery or fornication, or adultery and fornication, every such man and woman shall be indicted, and on conviction, shall be fined in any sum not exceeding two hundred dollars each, or imprisoned not exceeding six months. This offence shall be sufficiently proved by circumstances which raise the presumption of cohabitation and unlawful intimacy; and for a second offence, such man or woman shall be severely punished twice as much as the former punishment, and for the third offence, treble, and thus increasing the punishment for each succeeding offence: Provided, however, That it shall be in the power of the party or parties offending, to prevent or suspend the prosecution by their intermarriage, if such marriage can be legally solemnized, and upon the payment of the costs of such prosecution. The "open state" is a key part of the statue. An Illinois Supreme Court case in 1852, just 8 years after Joseph died, ruled that the purpose of the law was (page 410 of https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/defining-adultery-under-illinois-and-nauvoo-law) Quote prohibit the public scandal and disgrace of the living together of persons of opposite sexes notoriously in illicit intimacy, which outrages public decency Since Joseph Smith wasn't living in an open state of adultery (very few knew of it), he wasn't breaking the adultery law. The bigamy law is section 121 and 122 and that involves legal marriages. Since Joseph Smith didn't contract legal marriages (his were religious marriages), he wasn't breaking the bigamy law. Edited January 4 by webbles 2
PortalToParis Posted January 4 Author Posted January 4 (edited) [Post submitted in error] Edited January 4 by PortalToParis
PortalToParis Posted January 4 Author Posted January 4 On 12/29/2023 at 4:25 PM, Calm said: Is this Michelle Stone or someone else? Michelle Stone, Whitney Horning, and Gwendolyne Wyne are all referenced on the site, but the site itself doesn't have a name attached.
Calm Posted January 5 Posted January 5 (edited) 41 minutes ago, PortalToParis said: Michelle Stone, Whitney Horning, and Gwendolyne Wyne are all referenced on the site, but the site itself doesn't have a name attached. Thank you. (Someone was asking me to respond to Michelle Stone and I was hoping this was her because I could rip off what others have said so far ) Edited January 5 by Calm
gopher Posted January 5 Posted January 5 On 12/22/2023 at 1:04 PM, carbon dioxide said: What gets frustrating to me are those who dis polygamy but then support SSM. I was having a conversation with someone who did not believe polygamy came from God. Ok I can accept a different point of view then though one can write a whole essay on the subject of polygamy in the scriptures. At least there is something there even if one does not like it. Yet while polygamy could not be accepted by this person, the view that same sex marriage could be something that God approves of even though we have not got a revelation regarding it yet. So polygamy bad regardless of what is in the scriptures but same sex marriage might be ok even though there is not even the most remote evidence that it would ever be accepted by God. It was such a frustrating conversation to have. Removing religion and inequality of the sexes from polygamy seems to make it acceptable for many today. At least according to the articles on polyamorous relationships that occasionally show up in my news feed. Maybe polygamy would have been more widely accepted if the church used cute terms like "nesting partners" and "satellite partners". Link 2
TheTanakas Posted January 6 Posted January 6 On 12/17/2023 at 3:48 PM, Pyreaux said: Before that he said in Matthew 7:6. “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.” If we solely take that verse without considering Matthew 10:27, then we would never be preaching to Muslims. 1
Pyreaux Posted January 6 Posted January 6 7 hours ago, TheTanakas said: If we solely take that verse without considering Matthew 10:27, then we would never be preaching to Muslims. I don't think they are talking about the same things, there are still things in the gospel that the proverbial "dogs" (outer circle, outsiders, like Muslims) won't understand, such are "pearls" of wisdom (sacred/secret teachings) that are not for their ears, but that is only until they are no longer outsiders, and have a foundation laid. Even Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles, a champion of the great commission, preached a portion of the gospel according to a proverbial "milk" that is easy for the newbie-babies to digest, and not "meat" that would be hard for them to digest. Paul kept many mysteries. 1
The Nehor Posted January 8 Posted January 8 (edited) On 1/5/2024 at 1:18 PM, gopher said: Removing religion and inequality of the sexes from polygamy seems to make it acceptable for many today. At least according to the articles on polyamorous relationships that occasionally show up in my news feed. Maybe polygamy would have been more widely accepted if the church used cute terms like "nesting partners" and "satellite partners". Link There is polyamory as people try to practice it which is often messy. Then there is the fad of polyamory which is mostly people doing everything unethically and is always messy. Then there are the cheaters who try to claim “poly” to continue their affairs or legitimize them and that is more like a bomb than a mess. The main thing that polyamory would clash with is the gender inequality in LDS plural marriage. They still do clash with those Christian groups who practice something similar today. Someday I need to write something up here about how modern poly difficulties compare to plural marriage problems. Edited January 8 by The Nehor 1
Calm Posted January 8 Posted January 8 7 hours ago, The Nehor said: Someday I need to write something up here about how modern poly difficulties compare to plural marriage problems. Variations in economic dynamics makes it very difficult imo to accurately compare what went on in the past with what is happening now. Polygamy in a subsistence economy or polygamy as a sign of wealth, etc is a very different dynamic than polyamory, which seems to me is primarily about the relationship (long lasting or temporary).
The Nehor Posted January 8 Posted January 8 4 hours ago, Calm said: Variations in economic dynamics makes it very difficult imo to accurately compare what went on in the past with what is happening now. Polygamy in a subsistence economy or polygamy as a sign of wealth, etc is a very different dynamic than polyamory, which seems to me is primarily about the relationship (long lasting or temporary). Yeah, but anything I came up with would be more about the emotions involved. A lot of the emotions that modern poly people deal with are probably analogous to plural marriage emotions. It is just that the women in plural marriage were less likely to write blogs about them or share them at all. 1
gopher Posted January 9 Posted January 9 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: There is polyamory as people try to practice it which is often messy. Then there is the fad of polyamory which is mostly people doing everything unethically and is always messy. Then there are the cheaters who try to claim “poly” to continue their affairs or legitimize them and that is more like a bomb than a mess. The main thing that polyamory would clash with is the gender inequality in LDS plural marriage. They still do clash with those Christian groups who practice something similar today. Someday I need to write something up here about how modern poly difficulties compare to plural marriage problems. I was in a F&T meeting when a new member of the ward got up and testified that he learned from personal experience that God did not intend for us to be in open marriages. He was an interesting guy, a convert, covered in tattoos, had spiky green hair and always wore shorts to church. He was recently divorced but got remarried a few years later in the temple and moved out of the ward. We became pretty good friends.
The Nehor Posted January 9 Posted January 9 6 hours ago, gopher said: I was in a F&T meeting when a new member of the ward got up and testified that he learned from personal experience that God did not intend for us to be in open marriages. He was an interesting guy, a convert, covered in tattoos, had spiky green hair and always wore shorts to church. He was recently divorced but got remarried a few years later in the temple and moved out of the ward. We became pretty good friends. Oh sure, tell me he is single, talk up how awesome and cute he is, and then crush my heart by saying he remarried.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now