Historical Monogamy Doctrine website

[gopher]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Oh sure, tell me he is single, talk up how awesome and cute he is, and then crush my heart by saying he remarried.

Pretty sure even his mom doesn't think he's cute, but he makes up for it in personality

[TheTanakas]

On 1/6/2024 at 6:24 PM, Pyreaux said:

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,

In that case, non-temple-going Latter-day Saints would be viewed as the outsiders; who are forbidden
these sacred/secret teachings.

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, TheTanakas said:

In that case, non-temple-going Latter-day Saints would be viewed as the outsiders; who are forbidden
these sacred/secret teachings.

Indeed, Jesus was a Melchizedek High Priest, the keeper of temple secrets he'd only teach to his inner circle:

“To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables," (Mark 4:11)

Even the Jews circumcised and baptized still remained outside the most inner circle and remaining babies until they've fully ingested the milk-doctrines of faith, repentance, baptism, laying on of hands, resurrection and judgment

'You need someone to reteach you the basic principles of God’s word. You need milk, not solid food! For everyone who lives on milk is still an infant, inexperienced in the message of righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained their senses to distinguish good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith in God, baptism, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment." (Heb 5:12-6:2)

They needed to be ready for meat, as the Apostles, as Christ's fellow Temple Priests, were guardians of sacred teachings which they shared, but only to the mature,

"We speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew."

The "perfect" here means mature, full grown, as opposed to babes or children. Not publicly preached to the world, but secret. The "mysteries" (musterion) a word for initiation into secret rites, and the wisdom that is "hidden" (apocryphi) a word for secret teachings given only to the initiated.

[PortalToParis]

On 1/4/2024 at 7:29 PM, Calm said:

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  )

That sounds like quite the undertaking, as she must have something like 200+ hours of content on her channel now!

[PortalToParis]

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.

Doesn't that still mean that committing "unlawful intimacy" was against the core doctrine of "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"? And didn't trials for fornication and adultery happen when a child was produced, regardless of if it was an "open state" of fornication and adultery? : "After a ******* [illegitimate] child's birth, a trial for fornication or adultery usually followed.^[2] " 

[webbles]

1 hour ago, PortalToParis said:

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.

Doesn't that still mean that committing "unlawful intimacy" was against the core doctrine of "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"? And didn't trials for fornication and adultery happen when a child was produced, regardless of if it was an "open state" of fornication and adultery? : "After a ******* [illegitimate] child's birth, a trial for fornication or adultery usually followed.^[2] " 

I don't see why Joseph would have thought he committed "unlawful intimacy".  He was married/sealed to his other wives so why is it unlawful?

If a unmarried woman gave birth in Illinois and it was known, then yes, it would probably be considered an "open state of adultery or fornication".  But if it was hidden, then it wouldn't be an "open state".

[webbles]

I searched the Illinois statues of the time for any law about unmarried women and illegitimate children.  I searched for "b*st*rd", "unmarried", "adultery"', and "illegitimate" at https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433009071873&seq=9.  There is an entire section on illegitimate children on page 332 (358 of the pdf) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433009071873&seq=358.  It allows an unmarried woman to accuse the father and get child support.  But nothing that I can see that says an illegitimate child is a cause for adultery or fornication.

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

And didn't trials for fornication and adultery happen when a child was produced, regardless of if it was an "open state" of fornication and adultery? : "After a ******* [illegitimate] child's birth, a trial for fornication or adultery usually followed.^[2] " 

Only within a very limited context. Have you read the book that the wikipedia article references? I have a copy. The study in the book is limited to the last half of the 17th century in a single New England county. The book suggests that there was only a very limited time frame in which this sort of thing was even possible - the prosecutions dropped dramatically as people began to spread out into the larger area (when they were no longer contained in a small space that would have been claimed by the original settlers). And while this sort of process was caused by the puritanistic attitudes of the original colonists, those views weren't so firmly held by the younger generations. Which isn't to say that out-of-wedlock children weren't seen as a problem - just that the societal response to the circumstances shifted. Part of this is related to the societal problem of marriage. Most of the prosecutions that were brought weren't cases of adultery but caused by premarital sex. And the primary reason for this sort of thing in the early American colonies was the fact that parents tried to tightly control marriages. Society adjusted to this by changing the way that marriages were formed and by reducing the social stigma for out-of-wedlock children when the parents were both unmarried and who later were married. Of course, some times things were dealt with in other ways. I have a paternal great-great-grandfather that we only identified with certainty a few years ago because of DNA testing. My great-great-grandmother got pregnant, and he was killed shortly afterwards. She had several older brothers ... and the current family belief is that they dealt with the problem.

At the same time as we are dealing with all of this, we also have a shifting set of laws in the early US and the colonies - especially with the introduction of slavery. These laws generally reduced the impact of these charges against men - meaning that women were the most vulnerable to these issues. Another sign of shifting values.

And we shouldn't forget the problem that comes with these illegitimate children. Estimates are (at least as the book points out) that conception occurs on average after dozens of sexual encounters. While we can prosecute in the instances where there are illegitimate children resulting from non-marital sex, we can't prosecute for non-marital sex. And so we are really only going to see a small number of actual instances of adultery and fornication actually being prosecuted. And, without our technology today, determinations really required the participants to be honest about these issues. The degree of honesty involved was high early on (in the early to mid-17th century) only as long as the church had strong political power in the colonies. As the colonists began to divest much of the religious structure that they brought with them, the churches lost some of that prominence and the population stopped being so honest in these kinds of proceedings (at least this is what the book suggest). Just as interesting is the fact that this particular regions prurient interests were strong enough in this time period (unlike some of their contemporary colonial settlements) that they focused on these sorts of moral crimes rather than on the witchcraft issues that absorbed some of the nearby communities.

As you can see, all of these issues don't stop in 1699 (which is the end of the time period that the book discusses). By the time we get to the early 19th century, there are very little similarities to that early colonial period. Fornication and adultery were rarely prosecuted. It's hard to tell exactly how often these sorts of prosecutions were brought - because local records simply aren't very good and are very hard to search for those time periods. But, by the end of the 19th century they are virtually unheard of. In Michigan where I live, for example, the records that are easier to search are the appeals court records - we can say that since 1880 there have only been three appeals of convictions of adultery in Michigan. Based on my own explorations of my family history here in Michigan, I can identify several places where couples got married when the wife was several months pregnant. And of course, we aren't even starting on the subject of birth control, or the recently coined notion of the NPE, and so on.

The point of all this? I think that the statement that there were prosecutions following the birth of illegitimate children is true - but only in a very narrow context of place and time. By the time we get to early Mormonism, that source has nothing to say that is meaningful. And that source would tell you this itself, if you took the time to read it ...

[Calm]

Very interesting, Ben.

[Teancum]

On 12/13/2023 at 2:14 PM, PortalToParis said:

Posting a website written by a faithful LDS sister member, on the topic of Joseph Smith not having instituted polygamy as doctrine. Have any of you read it?

historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

Oddly, there seems to be a movement among some believing Latter-day Saints, to prove that Joseph did not institute plural marriage.  IT seems that polygamy and all the garbage that came along with it in the history of Mormonism troubles them.  Somehow they think that if Joseph Smith did not practice and institute LDS polygamy that all is well.  But what does it matter. THey don't argue that Brigham Young  and the other 19th century leaders did not practice it.  If the practice was wrong, evil, adultery or what have you, the LDS believer has a problem whether Joseph or his claimed successors started the practice.  Their church still has ploygamy as a significant part of its history and their heritage.

Ah the mental gyrations Mormonism causes for those willing to go down and chase all the problematic issues it brings.  There are just so many to choose from.

[Teancum]

On 12/13/2023 at 4:00 PM, Pyreaux said:

No, but heard many things like it. Joseph denied being a conventional polygamist, had no polygamist children according to DNA tests. So, if he were Sealing multiple women to him, he didn't seem to consummate them, no proof of coitus.

Lack of children is NOT proof of lack of sexual relations.

On 12/13/2023 at 4:00 PM, Pyreaux said:

 

Brigham's practice was different, more like the Mosaic Law, like a charity for widows and lone women,

Huh?  Brigham did not practice plural marriage simply for charity or widows.  Where did you get that idea?

On 12/13/2023 at 4:00 PM, Pyreaux said:

 

which coitus was permitted. Brigham claimed his practice was more or less as Joseph taught them. I'm sure he did, but I don't think Joseph practiced what he preached himself.

Joseph Smith most certainly practiced plural marriage and consummated them.  Do you think his plural wives where liars?

[Pyreaux]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

Lack of children is NOT proof of lack of sexual relations.

Huh?  Brigham did not practice plural marriage simply for charity or widows.  Where did you get that idea?

Joseph Smith most certainly practiced plural marriage and consummated them.  Do you think his plural wives where liars?

Yes. However, when seven women claim their child is Joseph's but it's not, it must throw the claim and nature of these "marriages" into question, also. The RLDS church got to sit pretty while the LDS church tried to convince a US court that Joseph was a polygamist and couldn't prove it. The best evidence was the diaries, but with DNA tests, we know the diaries were not correct in any literal way.

That's how it operated. If you were a wealthy member, when you least expected, you'd be called in to hear about the widow schoolmarm that needs a husband. You'd decline, worried about your reputation as a businessman or politician, then you'd get guilt-pressured into it. So yes, charity, as refusing was seen as being selfishly motivated. This reminds me, "With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women.  Then I was touched.  My heart was wiser than my head.  It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically "homely" creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, "No--the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure--and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence." - Mark Twain 

As I said, I think no one is trying to lie. There are conflicting accounts, the truth is likely in the middle of them, and what really happened is largely misunderstood by most. Though, some say that very thing. With Joseph dead, women were coming out of the woodwork claiming to be the widow of Joseph and would get taken care of.

Edited January 12, 2024 by Pyreaux

[webbles]

29 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Yes. However, when they claim their child is Joseph's but it's not, it throws their whole "marriage" into question. The RLDS church got to sit pretty while the LDS church tried to convince a US court that Joseph was a polygamist and couldn't prove it. The best evidence was the diaries, but by DNA tests we know the diaries were wrong.

The Temple Lot case decision can be read at https://archive.org/details/decisionofjohnfp00philrich/mode/2up?view=theater.  It was published by the RLDS shortly after the conclusion of the case.

An interesting paragraph on page 43 is:

Quote

But if it were conceded that Joseph Smith, and Hyrum, his brother, did secretly practice concubinage, is the church to be charged with those liaisons, and the doctrine of polygamy to be predicated thereon of the church? ... Certainly it was never promulgated, taught, nor recognized, as a doctrine of the church prior to the assumption of Brigham Young.

I think the judge makes a good point.  It doesn't matter whether the Utah church could prove that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy.  The church, in general, didn't practice it nor was it taught to them.  So, the judge doesn't really care if the Utah church could prove it or not.  That fact didn't matter to him.

He also says a little early on page 42:

Quote

and the Utah contingent furnishes the evidence, and two of the women, to prove this fact. It perhaps would be uncharitable to say of these women that they have borne false testimony as to their connection with Joseph Smith; but, in view of all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged intercourse, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most they were but sports in "nest hiding."

It sounds like the judge did accept that Joseph had a relationship with these two women but that they were just mistresses/concubines and not actual wives per doctrine from the church.

So, I don't think we can say that the Utah church failed to prove Joseph was a polygamist.  It looks like the judge accepted that Joseph did have mistresses.  The Utah church failed to prove that polygamy was a doctrine of the church and that was the important point.

[Pyreaux]

All the contradicted information makes the whole reality of the matter complex.  I don't think Emma was a liar. The kids weren't his kids. Maybe some marriages weren't marriages. We know even some of the proposals were not proposals. 'Hey, I want to marry Vilate Kimball.' 'Really?' 'Psyche!'

[PortalToParis]

On 1/12/2024 at 11:23 AM, Teancum said:

Oddly, there seems to be a movement among some believing Latter-day Saints, to prove that Joseph did not institute plural marriage.  IT seems that polygamy and all the garbage that came along with it in the history of Mormonism troubles them.  Somehow they think that if Joseph Smith did not practice and institute LDS polygamy that all is well.  But what does it matter. THey don't argue that Brigham Young  and the other 19th century leaders did not practice it.  If the practice was wrong, evil, adultery or what have you, the LDS believer has a problem whether Joseph or his claimed successors started the practice.  Their church still has ploygamy as a significant part of its history and their heritage.

The difference would be in whether or not polygamy is something God would command of others, whether as an eternal 'higher' law, or as a temporary commandment. If God never commanded Joseph Smith to practice it, and if Joseph Smith never taught it, and if everything about him practicing it was an untruth/half-truth, then that for many people would mean that there is no such thing as doctrinal polygamy, which has been a sticking point for many people, and is even a reason why many people have either left or have never joined the Church.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

The difference would be in whether or not polygamy is something God would command of others, whether as an eternal 'higher' law, or as a temporary commandment. If God never commanded Joseph Smith to practice it, and if Joseph Smith never taught it, and if everything about him practicing it was an untruth/half-truth, then that for many people would mean that there is no such thing as doctrinal polygamy, which has been a sticking point for many people, and is even a reason why many people have either left or have never joined the Church.

A lot who are finding this belief appealing are finding other beliefs they don’t agree with and are drawing further and further away from believing any leader after Joseph was actually a prophet or that the Church has any authority. Some went the apostate route so strongly in their attempts to explain the contrast between Brigham’s teaching of plural marriage and what they believe was Joseph’s reaction, they have Brigham being the instigator of Joseph’s murder. 
 

I would be very cautious suggesting this was a way to continue to have faith in the Church as the Lord’s if one felt plural marriage was wrong. 

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

The difference would be in whether or not polygamy is something God would command of others, whether as an eternal 'higher' law, or as a temporary commandment. If God never commanded Joseph Smith to practice it, and if Joseph Smith never taught it, and if everything about him practicing it was an untruth/half-truth, then that for many people would mean that there is no such thing as doctrinal polygamy, which has been a sticking point for many people, and is even a reason why many people have either left or have never joined the Church.

The problem is for its entire history, Utah Mormonism claims Smith did introduce plural marriage.  And there is no question the the Utah 19th century leaders did practice plural marriage. So if a member of the Utah sect of Mormonism successfully argues Joseph did not do polygamy and it is all at the feet of Brigham and crew, how does this help them?  Seems to me such a conclusion pretty much tosses Brigham and crew into a trash bin.

Edited January 15, 2024 by Teancum

[Tacenda]

On 1/10/2024 at 7:21 PM, PortalToParis said:

That sounds like quite the undertaking, as she must have something like 200+ hours of content on her channel now!

I just discovered Michelle Stone's youtube about polygamy. I was sad that she believes Joseph Smith didn't live it. If she's done that much research how can she come to that conclusion. I was very excited about her podcast until I found out that. I really liked a recent interview she had on the Mormonish podcast. And I first saw her on the Midnight Mormon podcast where they give her a hard time sort of, and she hold's her own. I'd love if she came on this board. 

[PortalToParis]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

A lot who are finding this belief appealing are finding other beliefs they don’t agree with and are drawing further and further away from believing any leader after Joseph was actually a prophet or that the Church has any authority. Some went the apostate route so strongly in their attempts to explain the contrast between Brigham’s teaching of plural marriage and what they believe was Joseph’s reaction, they have Brigham being the instigator of Joseph’s murder. 
 

I would be very cautious suggesting this was a way to continue to have faith in the Church as the Lord’s if one felt plural marriage was wrong. 

I suppose there were many back before the 1970s who felt that the Church's official stance on the priesthood/temple ban was undoctrinal, but the Church did continue to maintain that the ban was a doctrinal truth, implemented by God through Joseph Smith, and even that there were premortally-ordained reasons for it. We've since done away with that historical narrative, as well as those doctrinal beliefs (for most people I think) and now nearly 50 years later I think the majority agree that doing so has been very good for the Church. I think that ceasing to teach that polygamy was undoubtedly ordained of God, just like we ceased teaching the priesthood/temple bans to have been ordained of God, would likely have a similarly good effect both now and years from now.

[PortalToParis]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

The problem is for its entire history, Utah Mormonism claims Smith did introduce plural marriage.  And there is no question the the Utah 19th century leaders did practice plural marriage. So if a member of the Utah sect of Mormonism successfully argues Joseph did not do polygamy and it is all at the feet of Brigham and crew, how does this help them?  Seems to me such a conclusion pretty much tosses Brigham and crew into a trash bin.

It's true that if polygamy was undoctrinal, then practicing it was a mistake. But I think we as a Church have moved beyond any sense of church leader infallibility, so this would just be another mistake added to the list of mistakes that we already know about. It could be argued that that would mean it was the biggest mistake of all, but a mistake nonetheless.

As to the "tosses Brigham and crew into a trash bin", the current historical narrative of the Church is that Joseph Smith lied about polygamy throughout the time that he was alive and even up to his death. Saying that Brigham Young and a few others were instead the ones who lied wouldn't be all that different. I really don't think that *most* Mormons involved with it at the time were lying - they had been told (by someone) that Joseph was teaching it in secret, and they whole-heartedly believed what they had been told.

[PortalToParis]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I just discovered Michelle Stone's youtube about polygamy. I was sad that she believes Joseph Smith didn't live it. If she's done that much research how can she come to that conclusion. I was very excited about her podcast until I found out that. I really liked a recent interview she had on the Mormonish podcast. And I first saw her on the Midnight Mormon podcast where they give her a hard time sort of, and she hold's her own. I'd love if she came on this board. 

You could always ask her to! Her email address is on her youtube. I don't know if she's read the website that I posted here or not.

Edited January 15, 2024 by PortalToParis

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, PortalToParis said:

It's true that if polygamy was undoctrinal, then practicing it was a mistake. But I think we as a Church have moved beyond any sense of church leader infallibility, so this would just be another mistake added to the list of mistakes that we already know about. It could be argued that that would mean it was the biggest mistake of all, but a mistake nonetheless.

I don't know that anyone serious ever argues that there is an LDS doctrine that says apostles and prophets of the church are infallible.  But the doctrine that they speak for God, that we should follow what they teach and so on is. or has been, fundamental in Mormonism.  And it is not unreasonable at all to expect, based on what they teach, that they get it right on major doctrinal issues.  And plural marriage was and is a major doctrinal issue.  And it's practices, as well as the ceasing of the practice, is canonized as D&C 132.  So if Joseph did not introduce  at and Brigham and team should not have, the LDS church has a major doctrinal error.  

One cannot back pedal from this by simply saying that prophets make mistakes. If they make mistakes on big issues then what good are they?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, PortalToParis said:

I suppose there were many back before the 1970s who felt that the Church's official stance on the priesthood/temple ban was undoctrinal, but the Church did continue to maintain that the ban was a doctrinal truth, implemented by God through Joseph Smith, and even that there were premortally-ordained reasons for it. We've since done away with that historical narrative, as well as those doctrinal beliefs (for most people I think) and now nearly 50 years later I think the majority agree that doing so has been very good for the Church. I think that ceasing to teach that polygamy was undoubtedly ordained of God, just like we ceased teaching the priesthood/temple bans to have been ordained of God, would likely have a similarly good effect both now and years from now.

Yes, I can see them teaching it as a possible misinterpretation, but teaching Brigham and others were lying with the elaborate stories that were told about Joseph is quite different than the historical narrative of personal bias gets interpreted as doctrine for the ban when the originals were mostly dead and the history confused by a couple of former slave owners.

Edited January 16, 2024 by Calm

[webbles]

On 1/15/2024 at 10:55 AM, Tacenda said:

I just discovered Michelle Stone's youtube about polygamy. I was sad that she believes Joseph Smith didn't live it. If she's done that much research how can she come to that conclusion. I was very excited about her podcast until I found out that. I really liked a recent interview she had on the Mormonish podcast. And I first saw her on the Midnight Mormon podcast where they give her a hard time sort of, and she hold's her own. I'd love if she came on this board. 

I watched her episode #54 "Joseph wasn't a polygamist".  I also watched a few earlier episodes.  I can see why she doesn't believe that Joseph Smith lived it.  She believes quite strongly that section 132 isn't from God.  There isn't strong contemporaneous evidence that section 132 was written by Joseph Smith (I see a three part episode about William Clayton which I'll watch and I'm sure will be about how he isn't a good witness).  She also stated that all the evidence of Joseph's polygamy is from later years (1860+) when they would have a motive to lie about it (solidify Brigham's claim over Joseph III's claim).

That episode also started with an odd discussion about section 127 and 128.  I feel like this was a weak point but she apparently saw it as confirmation that Joseph wasn't a polygamist.  If I understood her correctly, the argument goes like this:

• Things must be recorded on Earth for them to have power in Heaven
• None of Joseph's polygamist sealings were recording on Earth
• Therefore, he isn't a polygamist

She pointed out that Todd Compton (who was on the previous episode) said that none of the sealings were recorded and she emailed the church asking if they have any records.  They responded that they only have Nauvoo temple sealings and since Joseph died before the Nauvoo temple was ready for sealings, he doesn't have any temple records.

A problem I have with that is many of the Nauvoo monogamist sealings (such as Joseph and Emma) aren't recorded in the temple either.  So does that mean that Joseph and Emma weren't sealed?  Or maybe, the recordings don't have to be temple recordings.  We have a note in Joseph's May 28, 1843 journal that can be read as a sealing record, but it doesn't mention the wife's name so maybe he was sealed to another woman?  It almost definitely is Emma but her name isn't there.  She also seems to be ignoring all of the proxy sealings for Joseph in the Nauvoo temple to his wives.  Those were definitely recorded (it is one of the main sources used by researches to figure out his wives).