Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Plural Marriage was Essential for Exaltation.


Ray Agostini

Recommended Posts

Now objecting to your hypberbole is "flaming"? heh It is nice that you are willing to recognize that they did what they "felt it was God's will" rather than being suicidal maniacs... because this is what you actually said.
There's really no need to psychoanalyze why these women, and men, did what they did. They were obeying God's will. It's the same reason some people drink poisoned kool-aid and fly planes into buildings. Those are extreme examples, but devoutly religious people are willing to sacrifice happiness in this life for rewards in the next life. That's what polygamy was about, obeying god and getting your eternal reward.

And I admitted it was an extreme comparison. I never called those people suicidal maniacs. Those are your words. Those "suicidal maniacs" did the things they did because they were following god's will. You are trying to understand why these women entered polygamy. It is my opinion that, in their mind, they were simply following god's will. I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time.

Link to comment

I don't think you realise that while YOU are aware that your opinion is only that, your opinion, there are people on these boards who act like their opinion is the ultimate Truth. So when you jumped on the stage and started saying things in an authoritative manner and without backing it with any evidence, you looked completely like those people.

As you keep pointing out, this is a message board. We don't know you. We can only see what you post. So if you post opinions in a strong tone and without backing them, what we see is another one of those people who think they have all the truth and their words should indeed be taken as gospel.

We see what you show. We're not prophets, sorry <_<

Del

I was actually kind of flattered that my words would be taken as fact, while Brigham Young's words are just his opinion. :P

LOL

I have been accused of sharing my opinion on here too. I will be back with the substance they wanted. I just don't have the time to type it all in from the history books I have. I will be back tonight to share why the FLDS is not to be dismissed.

Link to comment

So we have plural marriage as a marriage system. What do we know about it?

We know that it goes against our western sensibilities.

We know that it is currently practiced in many countries.

We know that the FLDS and other groups currently practice it in the US.

We know that the way the FLDS and the Tom Green's practice it is somewhat different than the way it was practiced by the early LDS. They currently seem to be a lot more controlling than the early LDS. It seems that all of the marriages are currently decided by the church leader--while among the LDS it was mostly individual choice (unless it was a welfare assignment.) We know that the women were free to leave if they wanted, and that they did. We also know that the women were encouraged to get an education and to vote. We know that today men are kicked out of the community on what everyone agrees are "trumped up" violations. They also lose their property and their families when this happens.

We know that the women of the day were very committed to it and wrote tracts and letters justifying it to the outside world.

We know that plural marriage can lead to a society that is oppressive of women.

We know that any relationships (including monogamy) can lead to a society that is oppressive of women.

We know that the marriage relationship and the roles of women are different than they were in 1950, much less 1850.

Other side issues are:

Did Joseph Smith "Lie" about it? Honestly, this falls into my "who cares" category.

Did Joseph Smith marry younger women? Answer--yes. He also married older women. There is no evidence this was "sick" or "twisted". We have to remember that the 11 year old Empress of Austria was married off to another royal. Some of this stuff really is cultural.

Did Joseph Smith marry--or was he sealed to married women? Yes, he was also sealed to married men.

Were the sealings consumated? I really don't know. Everyone seemed to be on the "up and up" about it. We had husbands standing in as witnesses. I don't think this is what we dream about in our Hollywood-influenced thoughts. We also have statements during the Reed-Smoot hearings that talk about younger marriages not being consumated.

Did the church stop plural marriage with the manifesto. They tried. It took a while to convince people that it was a good thing to stop. This leads me to believe that many people viewed it as a good thing.

Were the Mormon women "duped" into plural marriage? Were they simply "stupid"?

This gets into an offesive line of questioning. It falls into the:

"Why is she Catholic?" "Because she is stupid and duped."

"Why is she Mormon?" "Because she is stupid and duped."

"Why is she Baptist? "Because she is stupid and duped."

"Why is she Muslam" "Because she is stupid and duped."

And even "Why is she athiest?" "Because she is stupid and duped."

As you can see...that line of thinking just doesn't wash. It is unwise to assign our point of view to someone elses belief system.

Scott

Link to comment
The savior was suicidal?

:P

Well... Technically... He was immortal, you know. He could have lived forever. He had to CHOOSE to die. Technically, this is called a suicide <_<

Of course, the main difference is that Christ's "suicide" did NOT permanently end His life, quite the opposite. He only gave His life in order to reclaim it forever. No mortal suicide can ever achieve that result, nor is it usually the reason it is performed (pretty much the opposite in fact).

Isn't it interesting how weird things can look once you start considering them under crazy angles?

(kinda like what some anti-mormons do with LDS doctrine, culture and history :unsure:)

Del

Link to comment
Isn't it interesting how weird things can look once you start considering them under crazy angles?

(kinda like what some anti-mormons do with LDS doctrine, culture and history )

Agreed!

Well didn't he say...

"greater love have no man than this... that he should lay down his life for his brother"

<Rough paraphrase>

Link to comment

Everyone read Scott Gordon's post. That is how we are going to discuss this topic. You may say that you dislike/hate/despise/abhor the practice once. If you have nothing more to add don't.

When we get into sensitive topics like this one, those who play pay. That means that if someone is responding to you in good faith, provides documentation and asks the same, you may not continue with a broken record monologue. We then have nothing but pages of "yes he did, no she didn't" with everyone feeling out of sorts.

Link to comment

The emotional reaction is with those who immediately go into the moral outrage syndrome.    That is all I ever see from people who pound on it by using their modern day perceptions,  by forcing their own values on a group they will not take the time to appreciate and by never allowing the people who made the choice the dignity of that choice.

You're not carefully reading what I have written, Juliann. And it's pointless for me to keep going over it. "Moral outrage syndrome" (first time I've heard that, I have heard of "moral panic") is not what I am doing, it's what society-at -large is doing to any kind of abuse. You don't see the abuses in polygamy (or you refuse to acknowledge them) because you're a supporter of polygamy historically, and you are an active Mormon. There are thousands of others, including many Mormons, who do not support it, and who believe 100% that it was abusive. I went over all that in my previous posts.

So you don't want me to "force my values" on others? Isn't that kind of ironic coming from a member of a church that has over 50,000 missionaries doing what most would consider "forcing their values" on others? Have you read the surveys on this? I told you, however, that I am not concerned about what the church is doing NOW, and that I think Pres. Hinckley's public statements on historical polygamy are good, but that the church members are not accepting it. Do you realise that, technically, those supporting polygamy on this board, and I mean as a current doctrine, could be excommunicated? As was a fellow named Bennett, a CIA Mormon (it might have been FBI) who was exed years ago for writing letters to editors saying Mormons still believed in polygamy "in principle". He was told to quit, that the church no longer believes in polygamy, and he was privately told by two General Authorities that the church wanted to move into the mainstream and that letters like his were not helpful. He refused to stop writing and was either disfellowshipped or excommunicated. So to the vigourous supporters of polygamy on this board, just be careful you don't do the same in church or publicly - or you could find yourself before a disciplinary council. I can't remember the man's first name, but I know his surname was definitely Bennett, and it was an article in Sunstone. He was shocked, because like many on this board he thought the church leaders did still accept polygamy "in principle", and was defending it, he thought "valiantly".

Link to comment

Ray,

You're not carefully reading what I have written, Juliann. And it's pointless for me to keep going over it. "Moral outrage syndrome" (first time I've heard that, I have heard of "moral panic") is not what I am doing, it's what society-at -large is doing to any kind of abuse. You don't see the abuses in polygamy (or you refuse to acknowledge them) because you're a supporter of polygamy historically, and you are an active Mormon. There are thousands of others, including many Mormons, who do not support it, and who believe 100% that it was abusive. I went over all that in my previous posts.

I dont see her doing that at all. I see her as well as others drawing light to the fact that Polygomay in and of itself does not cause abuse. Did people abuse it? Sure they did. Even leaders. But so do people abuse other forms of marriage as well. Thats what people are not acknowlegeding.

Can abuse happen in a same sex union?

Sure it can... I don't see anyone jumping all over it for being abusive.

Its a double standard.

Link to comment

Can abuse happen in a same sex union?

Sure it can... I don't see anyone jumping all over it for being abusive.

Its a double standard.

And do you think I am silent on other abuses? Only three weeks ago in the local newspaper, at great personal risk, I was the only writer calling for the prosecution of men who had sex with underage prostitutes (the two girls abused were 13 and 14) in an illegal brothel. Fortunately, and wisely, I took out a silent number and my address is concealed from most. Drug runners and the local mafia would have my head in no time if they wanted.

But then, I'm just "afflicted" with "moral outrage syndrome", so I guess I deserve anything I get. I'm not a wowser. I drink, occasionally smoke, swear as all truck drivers do, and I see various women occasionally, so I'm certainly no moral prude, but I do not believe in lying, deceiving people, and I intensely dislike when people are abused in any way - men, women, or children, regardless of which religion they belong to. I have also been outspoken on the abuses of Muslim women in countries like Pakistan.

Link to comment

Hi Zak,

Hello Jullian,
I just don't get the need for all the breast beating.  It happened.  It's over.  Why not try to understand it rather than endlessly expressing outrage?  I don't have that much energy to go through history and be mad for everybody.

Well, it was practiced big time by the first two Prophets of the LDS Church Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. I can

Link to comment
We know that it goes against our western sensibilities.

And we know it went against the sensibilities of the neighbors and the rest of the country in the 1800's.

We know that it is currently practiced in many countries.

I'm not sure this matters. Genital mutilation is practiced in other countries, but I don't think that makes it right either.

We know that the FLDS and other groups currently practice it in the US.

This falls into my "who cares" catagory. The only reason this matters to me is that they practice it as a direct result of the early LDS leaders practicing it.

We know that the women of the day were very committed to it and wrote tracts and letters justifying it to the outside world.

We know that some women were very committed. We know that certainly not all women who practiced the Principle were committed. We know many women are committed to many unhealthy practices, which we soundly reject, such as genital mutilation. Just because some women were very committed doesn't make the practice right, and certainly doesn't make it revelation.

We know that plural marriage can lead to a society that is oppressive of women.

Agreed.

We know that any relationships (including monogamy) can lead to a society that is oppressive of women.

Agreed. Just because one practice can lead to oppression doesn't mean we have to accept all practices that can lead to oppression.

We know that the marriage relationship and the roles of women are different than they were in 1950, much less 1850.

Yet the basics remain the same: women are not chattel, women are not property, women are human, women are worthy of the respect due anyone else.

Other side issues are:

Did Joseph Smith "Lie" about it? Honestly, this falls into my "who cares" category.

This speaks to Joseph's integrity, his honesty, and the ability to trust his word when it comes to his "revelations". If that falls into your "who cares" catagory, it falls squarely in my "this matters" catagory.

Did Joseph Smith marry younger women? Answer--yes. He also married older women.  There is no evidence this was "sick" or "twisted". We have to remember that the 11 year old Empress of Austria was married off to another royal. Some of this stuff really is cultural.

Again, just because an action doesn't matter somewhere else doesn't mean the same action shouldn't matter here. Marrying 11 yr old's is not a part of our culture. Neither is marrying 14 yr olds.

Did Joseph Smith marry--or was he sealed to married women? Yes,

Yes. And it's impossible to verify if he slept with them or not because not many wayward men invite clerks and photographers into their bedrooms when they're conducting their extramarital affairs. So even if the investigator isn't willing to take the word of the women involved, it still remains a possibility.

he was also sealed to married men.

Immaterial, unless the married men alledge that Joseph slept with them (in which case, I, for one, will be very surprised.) Otherwise, it doesn't matter and is simply a red herring to divert the discussion. Sealings of men to men had a different goal than sealing of man to women.

Were the sealings consumated? I really don't know.

Indeed.

Everyone seemed to be on the "up and up" about it. We had husbands standing in as witnesses. I don't think this is what we dream about in our Hollywood-influenced thoughts. We also have statements during the Reed-Smoot hearings that talk about younger marriages not being consumated.

Do we have statements about the already-married being consumated? That's a bit of a sticking point: marrying an already married woman? That's a bit different than marrying a virgin or a widow.

Did the church stop plural marriage with the manifesto. They tried. It took a while to convince people that it was a good thing to stop. This leads me to believe that many people viewed it as a good thing.

Which leads me to believe that some people viewed it as a good thing. Some is not many. And it seems to me that the church had to finally excommunicate those who were performing the marriages in order to get them to stop.

Were the Mormon women "duped" into plural marriage?

You mean, were they victims of eccleastical abuse for believing it was a commandment from God?

Were they simply "stupid"?

No. Vulnerable, maybe. Naive, maybe. Pressured, maybe. But not stupid.

Link to comment

Did you not read the warning, Blink?

You may say that you dislike/hate/despise/abhor the practice once. If you have nothing more to add don't.

You have said it. Now move on or provide some substance. You are approximately one post away from the queue.

Link to comment

Hi,

I hate we are right & you are wrong kind of dialogues on this subject. It's an upsetting issue because people have such strong opinions.

I look for a grain of truth in Blink's concerns. He could be right on some issues. He certainly had a right to his point of view.

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment

I look for a grain of truth in Blink's concerns. He could be right on some issues. He certainly had a right to his point of view.

Sincerely,

Dale

It's wasn't my imagination. For some reason this board has been taking on a degree of intolerance to strong but different viewpoints. I don't like the way Lori was treated at all.

I may have to eat my words after all. I praised this board to many, but now I'm genuinely beginning to feel an "RFM-feel" feel here. Please don't tell me I'm going to have to acknowledge that Religiously Free was right!

Link to comment

No one is ever in danger because of one post, Ray (excepting an extreme situation). It is an accumulation of behaviors and complaints. You need to follow all of the threads before you make blanket statements about what is happening to whom. No one who reads the board policy should be surprised when we enforce it and no one should be posting without reading the board policy.

Everyone has expressed their opinions. We know where each of you stand. It produces nothing but anger when strong feelings are whacked back and forth like an overworked tennis ball. Provide something new and bring the level of dialogue up rather than down. If nothing can be offered beyond a rerun of what has been said multiple times then move on to another topic.

Link to comment

Dunamis, thanks for that clarification. I acknowledge that I do not see the wider issue because I don't have time to read many posts. Therefore I will have to trust you on this one. But I think that a lot of leeway should be given and only in rare circumstances should people be given the boot, or restricted in posts. That's just my opinion. I have not always agreed with Blink, but I would never want criticism of me censored, unless it was personal and defamatory and untrue. And even then, as long also had the right of reply I can handle myself. I think moderators should be careful, and realise that too much uncecessary intervention can be seen as intimidating and bullying, because a moderator holds. Some people deserve to be booted off, and generally the ones who deserve it do get it. And on that note I am off for the day.

Link to comment

Hi,

My post was intended to be kind to Blink. I am certainly willing to see his feelings as valid as anyones.

I treat Lori with a lot of respect. I have never been upset over any of her issues.

I do feel we could get into a hissing contest over plural marriage feelings, or we can live in peace. I prefer peace myself.

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment
Did you not read the warning, Blink?
You may say that you dislike/hate/despise/abhor the practice once. If you have nothing more to add don't.

You have said it. Now move on or provide some substance. You are approximately one post away from the queue.

My apologies. I thought I had added something of substance, especially since none of my comments were directed towards any poster or personally derisive or deliberately inflamatory or disrespectful to anyone.

I will of course refrain from further comment.

Link to comment
Do you realise that, technically, those supporting polygamy on this board, and I mean as a current doctrine, could be excommunicated? As was a fellow named Bennett, a CIA Mormon (it might have been FBI) who was exed years ago for writing letters to editors saying Mormons still believed in polygamy "in principle". He was told to quit, that the church no longer believes in polygamy, and he was privately told by two General Authorities that the church wanted to move into the mainstream and that letters like his were not helpful. He refused to stop writing and was either disfellowshipped or excommunicated. So to the vigourous supporters of polygamy on this board, just be careful you don't do the same in church or publicly - or you could find yourself before a disciplinary council. I can't remember the man's first name, but I know his surname was definitely Bennett, and it was an article in Sunstone. He was shocked, because like many on this board he thought the church leaders did still accept polygamy "in principle", and was defending it, he thought "valiantly".

Oh pish posh. If that were the case then Jana Riess and Christopher Kimball Bigelow, writers of the book "Mormonism for Dummies", should've had their disciplinary courts and been excommunicated by now, on p. 222 they write:

In fact, Mormonism still acknowledges polygamy as a divine principle that may apply in heaven, though it's no longer in practice on the earth (see Doctrine and Covenants 132).

- see chapter "Polygamy: A Divine Principle (But an Outdated Practice)", p. 221-226.

Link to comment

Hi Bro,

I have read all your quotes , I would like to make a simple statement that you and i dont know why the Lord does revoke his laws.May be its a higher law which requires some preparations and circumstances , yes PM will come back at his appointed time.After all this i would like to say one thing

Be like a child,humble,submissive ( i am not trying to say that you are not humble but certain things we don't know), dont ask any question, use your faith , have patience on his anointed servants.

Time will come where you will know why the law was given and why it was taken out.

I just want to say that CoJCLDS is the only true church,The Brethren whoever it is right from the time joseph smith to GBH they speak the mind and will of GOD.

Regards

victor

Link to comment

Oh pish posh. If that were the case then Jana Riess and Christopher Kimball Bigelow, writers of the book "Mormonism for Dummies", should've had their disciplinary courts and been excommunicated by now, on p. 222 they write:

In fact, Mormonism still acknowledges polygamy as a divine principle that may apply in heaven, though it's no longer in practice on the earth (see Doctrine and Covenants 132).

- see chapter "Polygamy: A Divine Principle (But an Outdated Practice)", p. 221-226.

Well it might be "pish posh" to you. You obviously don't understand the circumstances surrounding the Bennett case, because if you did you'd see it's in a totally different context. The book, Mormonism for Dummies is appropriately named. Because only dummies would take such a superficial view.

Bennett's was not a case of one quotation in a book. The book also does not reflect the opinions of the GAs, who likely disregarded it as benign anyway. Not worth the bother. Bennett wrote numerous letters to editors across the US. It was almost a campaign-like attempt to inform the public about what Mormons "really believed". To give you an example, one of his fiery letters was titled "It's not just for the birds" (polygamy). He was also influential in that he worked for a prominent organisation, but I can't recall if it was the CIA or FBI, but it was definitely one of them. Because his letters were so prominent it came to the attention of his local leaders, and eventually the GAs, who interviewed him and warned him to stop or face more serious consequences, which did follow when he did not stop. This left Bennett disillusioned.

Now you will note that I said that if members attempted to go public, or to teach this from the pulpits, they could be in trouble. If it is persistent, I suggest the member will be cautioned.

What does the subtitle to the chapter suggest anyway: "an outdated practice". Is a "divine principle" ever "outdated"? Why did the author not say "a deferred practice"? Or something like that? There is a disturbing duality about where the church really stands on this, but my understanding from what Pres.Hinckley has said is that it is "outdated". That doesn't resolve why a "divine principle" would become "outdated".

Link to comment

Ray, you're thinking of Michael Barrett. I think a reasonable person would conclude that Barrett was disciplined not because he was preaching false doctrine, nor because he was letting secret true doctrines out of the bag, but because his letters were clearly intended to cast the church in a negative light.

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...