Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

JS DID practice polygamy


Scottie

Recommended Posts

Scottie:

With the exception of JS marriage to Emma, JS sealings appear to be for the next life only. Thus would not entail sexual relations. Remember also that whole families were sealed to JS including men. Even the staughnest Anti does not calim that JS was Bi-Sexual.

IF the sole purpose of polygamy was children. Where are JS children? The only ones we have any record of are with Emma. He was obviously fertile, the other wives were obviously fertile as they had children AFTER JS. Where are the children?

There is NO evidence. Where are the children?

On the trek west some women were married to BY. There is NO indication sex was involved and those women report that none was involved.

Why is it a big thing what someone nearly 200 years ago did? I've known about JS polygamy from the time I knew people got married. I still converted to the church at 20 years old. I'm 54 now so I'm almost as old as your mother. Now go tell her you love her. She sounds like a good mother.

IF it was that painful why did you keep looking? You'd been warned that the Anti-Mormons spin innocuous events into dastardly deed to fool the unwary.

Link to comment
With the exception of JS marriage to Emma, JS sealings appear to be for the next life only. Thus would not entail sexual relations. Remember also that whole families were sealed to JS including men. Even the staughnest Anti does not calim that JS was Bi-Sexual.

IF the sole purpose of polygamy was children. Where are JS children? The only ones we have any record of are with Emma. He was obviously fertile, the other wives were obviously fertile as they had children AFTER JS. Where are the children?

There is NO evidence. Where are the children?

There is no evidence that children are the sole purpose, just a purpose. But suppose for the sake of discussion it is. Then D&C 132:19 comes into play because of the continuation of seeds in the afterlife.

Link to comment
With the exception of JS marriage to Emma, JS sealings appear to be for the next life only. Thus would not entail sexual relations.

First, there are LDS apologists that disagree with you.

Second, are you implying that all other mormon polygamists(i.e. Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, et al.) were WRONG for having SEX with their sealed women/girls?

Quite a leap my friend.

I guess they did not FOLLOW THE PROPHET.

All of the polygamists in the Bible has sex with their wives, why would JS not do so?

What a tangled mess this mormon history is, isn't it?

Link to comment

Ah, the moral outrage. The mock self-righteousness. Every one of these complainers accepts serial polygamy or multiple affairs without howling to the moon. It is all right as long as any children and mothers are abandoned. Sometimes I have to get out my hip waders to get through the hypocrisy.

Link to comment
With the exception of JS marriage to Emma, JS sealings appear to be for the next life only. Thus would not entail sexual relations. Remember also that whole families were sealed to JS including men. Even the staughnest Anti does not calim that JS was Bi-Sexual.

If this was considered a marriage I see no reason to not treat it as one. However, it is not looking good for those who are panting at JS's window. So far the alleged child most talked about is not from JS according to the DNA studies supported by the church who is trying soooooo hard to hide all this. :P

Link to comment

Thomas_Nelson:

Show me the children.

BY had some marriages on the trek west. There is no indication that sex was involved. Some of the women even deny it. After arriving in the SL Valley the concepts of polygamy expanded to include sex.

As BY was the prophet at the time. It is a pretty good guess that they followed the prophet.

SOME of the Prophets of the O.T. had polygamous sex. It is an assumption on your part that ALL of them did with ALL of their wives.

Link to comment
Ah, the moral outrage. The mock self-righteousness. Every one of these complainers accepts serial polygamy or multiple affairs without howling to the moon. It is all right as long as any children and mothers are abandoned. Sometimes I have to get out my hip waders to get through the hypocrisy.

The point of JS polygamy is that he LIED about it, broke laws he promised to keep, and disobeyed scriptures that were reveled to him.

k?

Got it Juli?

Link to comment

Peter denied three times knowing Jesus Christ. What's worse lying about not knowing the Savior or denying that one is a polygamist? U.S. law is overrated. Under U.S. law people used to own people as slaves. Perhaps Joseph Smith saw the laws against polygamy as bad. In order to challenge a bad law somebody has to be willing to ignore the law. Perhaps God has the right to interpret his own scriptures not man.

Horror of horror if a man of God broke U.S. law because he saw it as conflicting with what he felt God commanded him to do.

If D.&C. 132 is a revelation from God then Joseph Smith is innocent before God. What's worse being guilty before man's laws or Gods laws?

People should consider him as sincere whatever they think about his views on marriage.

Why does practicing polygamy mean you are a bad man? Where does the Bible state a man is a false prophet if he believed in or practiced polygamy? Where does the Bible state a true prophet could not recieve a revelation on polygamy? Where does the Bible state a true modern prophet could not break U.S. law?

Sincerely,

Dale

Link to comment
Peter denied three times knowing Jesus Christ. What's worse lying about not knowing the Savior or denying that one is a polygamist? U.S. law is overrated. Under U.S. law people used to own people as slaves. Perhaps Joseph Smith saw the laws against polygamy as bad. In order to challenge a bad law somebody has to be willing to ignore the law. Perhaps God has the right to interpret his own scriptures not man.

Horror of horror if a man of God broke U.S. law because he saw it as conflicting with what he felt God commanded him to do.

If D.&C. 132 is a revelation from God then Joseph Smith is innocent before God. What's worse being guilty before man's laws or Gods laws?

People should consider him as sincere whatever they think about his views on marriage.

Why does practicing polygamy mean you are a bad man? Where does the Bible state a man is a false prophet if he believed in or practiced polygamy? Where does the Bible state a true prophet could not recieve a revelation on polygamy? Where does the Bible state a true modern prophet could not break U.S. law?

Sincerely,

Dale

Did you read my reply to Juliann?

What about Warren Jeffs? He is doing the EXACT same thing that JS did.

Besides, aren't you CoC/RLDS? I thought the belief of your sect was that JS NEVER practiced polygamy.

I do see that JS as well as later mormon leaders felt that the LDS church would one day save the US government, and thereby take it over and thereby propagate mormonism to the world just before Jesus came back.

With feelings like that, I can see them feeling that they were above the law, "soon we will be the government and we won't prosecute our members!"

Brigham Young would not give up on polygamy. Utah should be thankful he died when he did, otherwise Utah would be a very small place.

Link to comment
What about Warren Jeffs? He is doing the EXACT same thing that JS did.

Mr. Nelson, don't you have something better to do with your hard-earned free time than making nasty accusations/comparisons about someone when you have absolutely no evidence or knowledge of what happened?

I think it's called slander. Take it someplace else.

Link to comment
What about Warren Jeffs? He is doing the EXACT same thing that JS did.

Mr. Nelson, don't you have something better to do with your hard-earned free time than making nasty accusations/comparisons about someone when you have absolutely no evidence or knowledge of what happened?

I think it's called slander. Take it someplace else.

Mr. Kawika,

We can establish parallels between the two leaders.

1. Both professed their divinity as prophets

2. Both state that polygamy is called of god

3. Both broke laws of the land which forbade polygamy

4. Both disobeyed their own statements with regards to #3.

5. By breaking laws both were running from the law.

When people around me make harsh comments about the FLDS, I make them think by telling them that the early LDS church was basically the same, AND that non members back then viewed the early LDS just as they are currently looking down on the FLDS.

Moderator: Godwin's Law: When a poster resorts to comparisons to Hitler/Stalin/Koresh/Jeffs the poster has lost the debate.

Link to comment

Let me quote AWyatt's post from the related thread. It shows where your comparison goes awry:

Why won't it? If your husband believes Joseph was a real prophet, and the real prophet said that God commanded it, why won't that work?

The only reasons I can think of why it wouldn't work is because (1) the person doesn't believe Joseph was a real prophet or (2) the person doesn't believe that God would ever command someone to practice polygamy.

If either of these is the case, all the "schoarly" works on polygamy you can dig up will never satisfy your husband--simply because polygamy isn't the real problem.

-Allen

Link to comment
Let me quote AWyatt's post from the related thread. It shows where your comparison goes awry:
Why won't it? If your husband believes Joseph was a real prophet, and the real prophet said that God commanded it, why won't that work?

The only reasons I can think of why it wouldn't work is because (1) the person doesn't believe Joseph was a real prophet or (2) the person doesn't believe that God would ever command someone to practice polygamy.

If either of these is the case, all the "schoarly" works on polygamy you can dig up will never satisfy your husband--simply because polygamy isn't the real problem.

-Allen

Oh I see.

Since JS was at the time THE ONLY prophet of God, he can do NO wrong?

Apologist like to run around claiming JS was a man and very capable of being fallible.

How do we NOT know his decision to introduce polygamy was not him being fallible?

How can you state that one thing from JS is divine while another is not?

Link to comment
Apologist like to run around claiming JS was a man and very capable of being fallible.

How do we NOT know his decision to introduce polygamy was not him being fallible?

Not being perfect or infallible vs. commiting adultery are two very different things, wouldn't you say?

God certainly pointed out the difference to David via Nathan.

I don't believe Joseph Smith could be an adulterer and a prophet, do you?

Link to comment

Thomas I am open to alternative views on Joseph Smith & Polygamy. The traditional RLDS view is posted at the http://www.restorationbookstore.org The Martha Brotherton articles is pretty good. Rodger Launius Joseph Smith 3rd Pragamatic prophet represents the many in the modern Community of Christ view that Joseph Smith was involved. The traditional RLDS view isn't the only point of view today.

I am open to honestly exploring questions that might prove plural marriage was of God. I might be wrong to be an anti-polygamist believer in the restoration.

I have no problem with saying I believe myself that anti-polygamy laws were unconsitutional. The U.S. Supreme court did wrong with misinterpreting the constitution to control the people of Utah. The U.S. supreme court went above it's own law. They did it with pro-abortion laws & land grabbing cities ignoring the property rights of citizens. Those guys & gals don't even stand for for the Ten Commandments. The U.S. supreme court should have sided with the Mormons but they sided with a government out to ignore the right of the people of Utah to govern themselves. Illinois law would have been thrown out if they had just properly stood up for the rights of polygamists.

Who say's the antipolygamy laws were constitutional? Those who tell me we can have endless abortions as freedom doesn't sound like a reliable court to me.

Link to comment
I have no problem with saying I believe myself that anti-polygamy laws were unconsitutional. The U.S. Supreme court did wrong with misinterpreting the constitution to control the people of Utah. The U.S. supreme court went above it's own law. They did it with pro-abortion laws & land grabbing cities ignoring the property rights of citizens. Those guys & gals don't even stand for for the Ten Commandments. The U.S. supreme court should have sided with the Mormons but they sided with a government out to ignore the right of the people of Utah to govern themselves. Illinois law would have been thrown out if they had just properly stood up for the rights of polygamists.

Who say's the antipolygamy laws were constitutional? Those who tell me we can have endless abortions as freedom doesn't sound like a reliable court to me.

Again the problem lies with the timeline.

Polygamy was in fact against the law. JS introduced it and practiced it. He then lied about that introduction and practice by introducing D&C 101:4 in 1835.

He willingly mislead his followers and worse, his own wife. In my eyes he cheated on his wife. I have no respect for a man you does that to his wife.

Moderator: Then you will understand that we have no respect for problem posters who come back under different screennames. :P Your account is suspended. Again.

Link to comment
In your opinion, where does the blame for this lie? Is this on the members for not researching the history of the church, or is this on the church for not including such a critical historical aspect in the lesson manuals?

I believe the "blame" for the shallow version of history, parotted by your mother and your friend's mother, is in naught but ignorance. The Church has never taught that, only people without having done any research (or even consulting the Smith family) taught that. There is nothing sinister or cover-up about it. The Church emphasizes: faith, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and the ordinances of salvation (temple), in short: FOLLOW JESUS. Worrying about the details of history has never been the point; satan would have you think otherwise, and make the color of pioneer dresses more important than taking the sacrament. Hogwash.

Link to comment
Boy, did THIS thread get hijacked!!

Boy, didn't it though!!

It was never intended to turn into an actual polygamy thread. It was a simple observation I made that many of those I know don't know that JS started polygamy. I simply wondered if that was just me, and if not, why that is.

I wasn't condemning the church. I wasn't spewing any kind of coverup or conspiracy-theory.

And, this thread was NOT started with indignation, pretended ignorance, etc.

Scottie, the tone of some(!) people on this thread make me so grateful for your demeanor.

Thank you. I do try to be civil and listen to different viewpoints.

Link to comment

TN said:

What about Warren Jeffs?  He is doing the EXACT same thing that JS did.

Defend this assertion. I'd especially like to see support for the proposition that a systematic welfare fraud against the United States and the State of Utah is the functional or moral equivalent of JSJr.'s and his successors' support of JSJr.'s wives and their children.

Link to comment

Hey Scottie,

To your question as to why. I think a lot of the reason that polygamy is less associated with Joseph than it is with Brigham is because of the very strong denials of polygamy that came from Emma and the Reorg Church.

The Utah Church didn't feel it necessary to dwell on Nauvoo Polygamy, although the information has been there if sought for, and as a result the statements by the Reorg Church were generally listened to by members (such as your Mom).

I have priesthood, and relief society manuals from as far back as as the 60's and I find references in many lessons. The problem was that unless an instructor felt comfortable talking about polygamy that material was often passed over and the information on the covenant of marriage emphasized. This is seen as the more pertinent to the members today information.

I don't completely understand the whys and wherefores of polygamy. But I have had a testimony of the Prophet Joseph since I was 16. When I studied Nauvoo era polygamy this testimony caused me to seek understanding from the Lord as to why, and I never received an answer. I still don't know. Eventually I changed my request, I sought confirmation that the practice was of God, to this request I got a definite answer in the affirmative. I'm content with that knowledge until the Lord feels me sufficiently prepared to receive the understanding I don't have.

Perhaps such an approach would work for you, perhaps not. I wish you the best.

-Ed

Link to comment
Alpha, I think (but I am not sure) that you are asking if a "fact" is brought up that maybe shows Joseph Smith in a bad light, that means the person bringing up the "fact" has to be considered anti-.

You have probably seen by now, that there is nothing new that has been brought up here on the board. Everything has been published, circulated, discussed, etc. So when someone starts a thread with indignation, pretended ignorance, etc. I generally tend to think they are leaning toward the anti- side and not being honest about it.

Was that what you asked?

Yes.

Thanks.

yes many things have been openly discussed here. It is just evident that many times the accusers of the fact are considered enemy or anti...

This doesn't have to always be the case. If people understand that "stuff happens", and not have to lable the sources, maybe some would not have as many difficulties as they do...such as with this topic.

Just a thought.

Link to comment
When one wants to find truth. The best way I believe is to seek God for yourself.

We had a couple of big threads about this a couple of weeks ago. I have SERIOUSLY tried to find the truth by asking God. I have never received what I believe to be an answer.

OK Scottie,

Then maybe you need to separate yourself for a while and get alone with God...The bible says to come bodly before the throne...

Get off of the forum and ask, not expecting anything in the way you may think.

I'll pray that god puts someone in your path...AMEN?

Link to comment

Where does the Bible state a man is a false prophet if he believed in or practiced polygamy?

Where does the Bible state a true prophet could not recieve a revelation on polygamy?

Where does the Bible state a true modern prophet could not break U.S. law?

A false prophet is described as:

Acts 13:6 A sorcerer

Rev 16:13...unclean spirits

Rev 19:20 does miracles to deceive

Rev 20:10 will be cast in the lake of fire with the devil

Still trying to find description....

Matthew 7:15 come as ravening wolves in sheeps clothing

24:11 they will deceive many

24:24 they shall arise, show great signs and wonders, they can deceive the very elect

Mark 13:22 they seduce even

:21 And if any man shall say to you, Lo here is Christ; or, lo, he is there, believe him not

luke 6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets

2 Peter 2:1 among the people as well as false teachers, bring in damnable heresies, denying the Lord, bring upon themselves swift destruction

1 John 4:1 tells us to not believe every spirit, but try them whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone into the world

Well to answer these questions then

1. The Bible doesn't say anything about polygamy making man a false prophet

2. Doesn't

3. Doesn't

Does anyone have better scriptures to offer?

The word polygamy is not in the Bible...

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...