Come Follow Me (April 1-7) - Talk about chastity, no mention of polygamy

[Pyreaux]

59 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I am looking at the "marriage" in a holistic way. JS who was 37 "married" a 15-year-old.  I was already married to many other women and girls.  Most of this was done is secret and behind  Emma's back.  You are the one using a common apologetic tactic of focusing on one little issue such as, whether was it legal for a 14-year-old to marry.   That is a minor point.  Very minor.   Why don't you address the lies and dishonesty that were used to hide his actions?  I thought God doesn't work in darkness.

I have tactics? You were the one who brought up just one issue I "focused" on, when I countered, you refused to concede your error, instead you keep trying to bring up other issues, to change what you originally meant (or rather have said). To me you appear to be trying to distract me with all your added addenda.

I think Emma knew about it. She knew about polygamy. Records of Emma’s reactions are sparse; she left no firsthand accounts, after Joseph died, she said nothing about it, making it impossible to reconstruct what she knew, or her thoughts.

If you are claiming Helen was a victim of Joseph Smith, that is a claim she never made for herself. With the complex nature of these non-time marriages, simply marrying someone tells me next to nothing. Helen never describes in her journal or later writings ever being alone with Joseph without a chaperone.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It is directed towards the wife of any keyholder directed to exercise his keys concerning plural marriage

I admit that I've had difficulty understanding the LDS concept of keys. I'm not saying that's y'all's fault (the English teacher in me rejoices when I can use 2 apostrophes in one word 😁). Is Joseph Smith the only keyholder in this dispensation? Or is that every LDS prophet/president? Every man, except for the president/prophet, has to get his first wife's permission?

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I admit that I've had difficulty understanding the LDS concept of keys. I'm not saying that's y'all's fault (the English teacher in me rejoices when I can use 2 apostrophes in one word 😁). Is Joseph Smith the only keyholder in this dispensation? Or is that every LDS prophet/president?

The Prophet/Presiding Melchizedek High Priest/President of the Church is the keyholder in the earth.

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Every man, except for the president/prophet, has to get his first wife's permission?

If the keys were currently being exercised (which they currently are not) only the current prophet could take additional wives without permission from his wife but only after sufficiently and properly instructing her in the principle of plural marriage and having her reject the teaching.

Every other man must ask for, and gain, permission from first wife.

That is what I understand from studying the verses.

[manol]

27 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Since I believe God is good, fair, and no respecter of person- and that this is a revelation from that same God- who am I to say they aren't?

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If the keys were currently being exercised (which they currently are not) only the current prophet could take additional wives without permission from his wife but only after sufficiently and properly instructing her in the principle of plural marriage and having her reject the teaching.

How is this fair to the first wife?  This is just coercion hiding behind a technicality.  The first wife has no real choice.  A "choice" between consent and coercion is not a choice. 

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If the keys were currently being exercised (which they currently are not) only the current prophet could take additional wives without permission from his wife but only after sufficiently and properly instructing her in the principle of plural marriage and having her reject the teaching.

Every other man must ask for, and gain, permission from first wife.

So how is this consistent with a God who is no respecter of persons?  Not only is it incredibly unfair towards and manipulative of the first wife, but it is only the leader gets this special privilege. 

What happened to being Christ-like? 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, manol said:

How is this fair to the first wife?  This is just coercion hiding behind a technicality.  The first wife has no real choice.  A "choice" between consent and coercion is not a choice. 

So how is this consistent with a God who is no respecter of persons?  Not only is it incredibly unfair towards and manipulative of the first wife, but it is only the leader gets this special privilege. 

What happened to being Christ-like? 

 

Apparently, additional responsibility rests on the wife of the Lord's designated keyholder.

[PortalToParis]

On 4/4/2024 at 3:23 PM, TheTanakas said:

The only answer to this question I could find from reading the eight verses is 
mentioned in verse 30 - "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed 
unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things"....

Apart from a few LDS leaders that entered into plural marriage (with wives), I 
can't find any mention of them taking many concubines....

With all the wars mentioned in the Book of Mormon where the male soldiers were 
being killed, I couldn't find a better reason for the need to "raise up seed unto 
God" and yet no Book of Mormon character was commanded to have many wives and 
concubines.  

Why is that?

These are really great questions you came up with, I'm impressed. You've managed to find a few things inconsistent about polygamy and concubinage being commanded by God. On the Historical Monogamy Doctrine website (https://historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine) there are a lot more inconsistencies that are explored, as well as an alternate narrative put forward of early Mormon polygamy. It touches on each of the points that you've brought up, so I recommend you read through it. If you do, I hope you reply about what you think of it.

Peace.

Edited April 6, 2024 by PortalToParis

[manol]

20 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Apparently, additional responsibility rests on the wife of the Lord's designated keyholder.

If the verses you quoted were put forward as "thus saith the Lord" in any other context than the religion you believe, would you defend them as consistent with a God who is good, a God who is fair, and a God who is no respecter of persons?   (Imo those verses obviously are NONE of those things.  I go by their actual content, not by their claimed authorship.)

In other words, do the scriptures you quoted actually stand on their own merit (like the teachings of Christ do)?

True principles stand on their own merit regardless of who their authorship is attributed to.  Check out my signature for examples. 

Edited April 6, 2024 by manol

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The Prophet/Presiding Melchizedek High Priest/President of the Church is the keyholder in the earth.

If the keys were currently being exercised (which they currently are not) only the current prophet could take additional wives without permission from his wife but only after sufficiently and properly instructing her in the principle of plural marriage and having her reject the teaching.

Every other man must ask for, and gain, permission from first wife.

That is what I understand from studying the verses.

Interesting interpretation and better than allowing any man to do it, which is how it is usually interpreted.

[PortalToParis]

18 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

A bit cheap and erroneous. Massachusetts and New Hampshire allow marriages of 14-year-olds today.

Putting ages aside, polygamy was illegal in Illinois from 1833 onward:

Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99: Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. -- https://archive.org/details/revisedlawsofill00illi/page/198/mode/1up?view=theater

Saying polygamy was commanded by God then contradicts D&C 58:21 where God states,

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

Edited April 6, 2024 by PortalToParis

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, manol said:

How is this fair to the first wife?  This is just coercion hiding behind a technicality.  The first wife has no real choice.  A "choice" between consent and coercion is not a choice. 

It doesn’t seem that way.  

I don’t believe Joseph lied about it being from God, though I think he made plenty of mistakes….just so my bias is clear.

Was it something so important it had to be done even if violating the rule that every other man was supposed to live by (if zealously’s interpretation is correct)?  If it was so important, why not lead Joseph to a wife who could get behind this as well as be supportive in other things of Joseph’s calling?  Too intrusive/too impeding of agency?  But why mess with Emma’s agency and not Joseph’s?

I suppose in order to survive and to help Joseph survive and be able to give so much to his friends and the Church, his wife needed to be of exceedingly strong stuff.  Perhaps there was no woman alive better than Emma, who accepted so much and appears to have never faltered in love (even if BY had the gall to accuse her of poisoning Joseph) even if she refused to accept this.

Edited April 6, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Putting ages aside, polygamy was illegal in Illinois from 1833 onward:

Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99: Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. -- https://archive.org/details/revisedlawsofill00illi/page/198/mode/1up?view=theater

Saying polygamy was commanded by God then contradicts D&C 58:21 where God states,

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

 

"And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me."  (Doctrine and Covenants 98)

*The constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws had not yet been established by the court of last resort (Supreme). When it was the Church, eventually, complied.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Putting ages aside, polygamy was illegal in Illinois from 1833 onward:

Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99: Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. -- https://archive.org/details/revisedlawsofill00illi/page/198/mode/1up?view=theater

Saying polygamy was commanded by God then contradicts D&C 58:21 where God states,

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

Are you of the view that it was an innovation of Brigham’s who lied about it being Joseph along with all the other men and women?

[PortalToParis]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I believe it was used to raise up a generation of leaders for the future of the Church, not just seed in general. Who more equipped to lead the Church than the children of those willing to keep ALL the principles taught?

The Historical Monogamy Doctrine website (https://historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine) addresses this idea, and says this about it:

The idea was that by having the more righteous men have a greater number of wives and children, the following generations of people would be healthier and stronger - essentially by having such a high proportion of them be from the most holy and good men. In fact, the opposite of this is now known to be genetically true - the more limited the male gene pool, the more genetic diseases and shortened lifespans you will have occur. Due to polygamy, as reported by the BBC, "more human disease genes have been discovered in Utah - with its Mormon history - than any other place in the world." [a]

Certain families are still facing fatal illness and early deaths to this day as a result of early Mormon polygamy - see "Fatal Inheritance: Mormon Eugenics" for Linda Walker's introductory exposition on the topic.

[PortalToParis]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you of the view that it was an innovation of Brigham’s who lied about it being Joseph along with all the other men and women?

Yes to Brigham lying about it, but not "all the other men and women", there were several key men and women who testified that Joseph never taught polygamy.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Agreed.

Those verses do not sound to me like something a God who is good, and fair, and no respecter of persons, would say.  They completely undermine the first wife.  (But they do sound to me like something Brigham Young could have written.)

I have friends who are polygamists, and have lived among polygamists, and among those families I got to know well enough to have an in-depth conversation with, none of them were based on those imo toxic verses.  Instead the wife (or wives) were the ones who found their sister-wife, not the husband. 

Do they believe that polygamy is a commandment but that a wife has the right to keep her husband from following it?

(That probably sounds like a backhanded way to defend those verses in the D&C but I don't mean it like that.  I'm sincerely curious if their view of it is comparable to the situation with JS we are discussing or if they believe God condones choosing to stay monogamous.  If they do believe it's a commandment from God and not one they can refuse to obey without consequence, how does their doctrine say to handle it when one of them finds themselves in JS's predicament, having to choose between what they believe God says they have to do and what their wife will allow?)

[ZealouslyStriving]

8 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

The Historical Monogamy Doctrine website (https://historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine) addresses this idea, and says this about it:

The idea was that by having the more righteous men have a greater number of wives and children, the following generations of people would be healthier and stronger - essentially by having such a high proportion of them be from the most holy and good men. In fact, the opposite of this is now known to be genetically true - the more limited the male gene pool, the more genetic diseases and shortened lifespans you will have occur. Due to polygamy, as reported by the BBC, "more human disease genes have been discovered in Utah - with its Mormon history - than any other place in the world." [a]

Certain families are still facing fatal illness and early deaths to this day as a result of early Mormon polygamy - see "Fatal Inheritance: Mormon Eugenics" for Linda Walker's introductory exposition on the topic.

Nice for a hit piece that cites mostly anecdotal evidence from her own family with the hope the Church will open their records to prove her right then shifts to the absolute most extreme version of familial polygamy practiced by the Kingston's.

I'll pass.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

Yes to Brigham lying about it, but not "all the other men and women", there were several key men and women who testified that Joseph never taught polygamy.

But the men and women who testified he was involved were lying in your view?

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, manol said:

If the verses you quoted were put forward as "thus saith the Lord" in any other context than the religion you believe, would you defend them as consistent with a God who is good, a God who is fair, and a God who is no respecter of persons?   (Imo those verses obviously are NONE of those things.  I go by their actual content, not by their claimed authorship.)

In other words, do the scriptures you quoted actually stand on their own merit (like the teachings of Christ do)?

True principles stand on their own merit regardless of who their authorship is attributed to.  Check out my signature for examples. 

I'm not agreeing with zealously or defending the actions of JS, but in terms of the idea that 'God's words and actions will always be consistent with our mortal idea of a good, fair, and loving God' having merit as its own principle, I don't think that really works.

There are too many babies born into circumstances that I cannot conceive of a loving God allowing to happen for me to use that as my standard for deciding what God will do and what He won't.  I cannot be a judge of what is good, and fair, and loving.  Otherwise I just create a god after my own image with my own sense of morality.

Even Christ taught some things that don't seem loving or fair to me, but His ways are not my ways so it makes sense that He and I will not always immediately see eye to eye on everything.

[PortalToParis]

16 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

"And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me."  (Doctrine and Covenants 98)

*The constitutionality of anti-polygamy laws had not yet been established by the court of last resort (Supreme). When it was the Church, eventually, complied.

If that D&C verse had been given in another country or another century of time, then you could argue it to be referring to something unrelated to the laws Joseph Smith was subject to, but being that it was given in 1833, directly to Joseph Smith, who was living in Illinois, it is 100% applicable. The original D&C Section 101 also stresses the necessity of marriages being legal in order to be valid:

Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives.” And when they have answered “Yes,” he shall pronounce them “husband and wife” in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him: “may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfil [fulfill] your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen.”       

All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.  

.....So Joseph Smith himself is here referring to polygamy as a crime. So even if you don't think it to have been "unlawful enough to be deemed illegal", Joseph Smith seemed to think so, and then he published such language into the Doctrine & Covenants.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

If that D&C verse had been given in another country or another century of time, then you could argue it to be referring to something unrelated to the laws Joseph Smith was subject to, but being that it was given in 1833, directly to Joseph Smith, who was living in Illinois, it is 100% applicable. The original D&C Section 101 also stresses the necessity of marriages being legal in order to be valid:

Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to be married, standing together, the man on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be directed by the holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he shall say, calling each by their names: “You both mutually agree to be each other’s companion, husband and wife, observing the legal rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others, during your lives.” And when they have answered “Yes,” he shall pronounce them “husband and wife” in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the country and authority vested in him: “may God add his blessings and keep you to fulfil [fulfill] your covenants from henceforth and forever. Amen.”       

All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.  

.....So Joseph Smith himself is here referring to polygamy as a crime. So even if you don't think it to have been "unlawful enough to be deemed illegal", Joseph Smith seemed to think so, and then he published such language into the Doctrine & Covenants.

Are you a Restorationist RLDS?

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled

Do you interpret this as a rejection of temple sealings being necessary for married converts by chance?

[PortalToParis]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

But the men and women who testified he was involved were lying in your view?

Not all of them were lying, no. Many of them believed Joseph Smith to have been engaging in plural marriage, based on what they had been told by others.

Joseph Smith was also sealed to more people than just Emma. But the sealings were familial adoption sealings, not "permission to have illegal sex with" sealings. It was revealed to Joseph Smith that the sealing power was to bind everyone together in the priesthood, but they didn't have any idea of our current concept of being able to use geneological technology to find out the name and birth date of everyone's great-great-great grandparents, so the sealings weren't done in our current generational way, but a patriarchal way. Sealings did not originally have anything to do with sex or marriage.

The sealing ordinance was later conflated by polygamists to be the plural marriage ordinance. When affidavits from women were collected for the Temple Lot trial, the question asked of them was, "Were you married or sealed to Joseph Smith?". They were only able to answer "Yes" or "No" in swearing answer to the affidavit, which is problematic if sealings and polygamy were never originally intended to be the same thing. It doesn't mean all, or most, of those women were lying.

But of course the Historical Monogamy Doctrine website explains it all better: https://historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

Edited April 6, 2024 by PortalToParis

[PortalToParis]

19 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Are you a Restorationist RLDS?

Nope, I am a life-long (and current) LDS member.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

So Joseph Smith himself is here referring to polygamy as a crime. So even if you don't think it to have been "unlawful enough to be deemed illegal", Joseph Smith seemed to think so, and then he published such language into the Doctrine & Covenants.

Do you believe this was written by Joseph or it was written by Oliver and published by Joseph?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, PortalToParis said:

ut of course the Historical Monogamy Doctrine website explains it all better: https://historicalmonogamy.wixsite.com/evidenceofdoctrine

Often people only agree with part of what they link to, so I was asking to clarify your position.  Do you differ with anything presented on that website?  Just want to be clear on context to better understand your comments.