Thursday, May 11, 2006

Origins of Polygamy

Polygamy was started by the founder of the LDS Mormon religion. He had many wifes , some of them underage. One of the conditions he set for entering into Heaven was entering into plural marriage. These are indisputable facts of the LDS Mormon religion. The LDS Mormon religion was a polygamous religion from square one. And all you LDS members out there need to understand that to this very day , it is STILL a polygamous church.

51 comments:

ATAR_i said...

Ok, back up just a touch.

I remember when polygamy was introduced - JS already had a hard core following - and his puritanical followers had a hard time with it initially.

SO - in order to have followers, he had the religion going a bit before he introduced that revelation.

Isn't that correct - please ad a timeline if you have one.

ATAR_i said...

p.s. I don't mean I remember - I mean I recall reading something about when polygamy was introduced.

CHRH said...

Sorry Fundy, but living plural marriage is NOT a prerequisite to entering heaven. Get your facts and ideas and thoughts straight before spewing them out for the world to see.

onthestreet said...

So do, chrh. The Tree of Life has three mothers, and 24 maidens, and twelve gates. That is eternal life.

Anonymous said...

three calling birds and a partridge in a pear tree.

Mantra following mantra signifying nothing.


rcn

ATAR_i said...

: )

onthestreet said...

rcn: LOL, you smart ass. Hey, that's okay. Each one's level of understanding is where it is, and that's okay.

onthestreet said...

Besides, you've added some music to the blog, so bloggy up little dogie. Yippie Aye O, get along.

Anonymous said...

Oh so you understand my religion do ya?

A primary tenet of the LDS Church is the principle of modern day revelation and living prophets. Polygamy is not a basic tenet of the LDS Church anymore. Current prophet Gordon B. Hinckley reminded the world in a 1998 speech that anyone who practices polygamy in the church will be excommunicated. This follows a manifesto signed by Wilford Woodruff in 1890 outlawing the practice. It's called modern day revelation.

CHRH said...

Yes it is called modern day revelation. And all of humanity has a right to it, not just the Mormons.

Men In Black said...

The church helped fund a movie called "The Work and the Glory" made in 2004, it worth viewing. I think since the church helped in its funding, this versions was likely supported by them. Its fact and fictional, but gives one side of the issue.

Now debating the origin of polygamy might be interesting, but I think there should be more pressing concerns on your mind. Rome is burning and some think its only an illusion.

Anonymous said...

If you think that idiot GBH has one drop of modern day revelation you had just as well go follow WJ , same difference. Its called modern day BS. From Gordom B. Hinkley the king of BS. And the rest of his BS apostles.
GBH could'nt excomunicate anyone because he is an apostate leader. And so are all his apostate apostles. Running an apostate church. The manifesto was a piece of toilet paper. A primary tenent of an apostate church with apostate leaders.

Anonymous said...

Gordon B. and WJ two peas in a pod , only difference one is some what more intelligent. But both spread the same fertilizer. Nonsense for the brain.

Anonymous said...

All churches reject polygamy, not just LDS Mormons, Roman Catholics, Baptists, Church of Christ etc. don't accept either.

To dispell the fantasys of fundy OTS etc. Here's what the LDS really believes: http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11-1,00.html

Above statement shows that LDS Mormon church see marriage as one man one woman, and anything else is such as polygamy, gay marriage a sin.

Don't believe internet rumors and fantasys posted by OTS fundy etc.

See link for what LDS really believe: http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1082-1,00.html

http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-1,00.html

Anonymous said...

If the LDS church does not believe in polygamy then why is D&C 132 still in their scripture book?

D&C 132 is all about POLYGAMY

The LDS church updates their scripture books on a regular basis. Yet in 2006, this POLYGAMY reference is STILL THERE!

You can't convince me that the LDS church doesn't believe in polygamy.

HAA!

Anonymous said...

The doctrine of presto chango as it applies to polygamy. In order to make a religion popular, a money maker, certain doctrine of the past must be dumped. Because it is not a popular belief any longer, so things must change, in order to maximize popularity and also CASH FLOW. This is the doctrine of presto chango, the flock, the fish in the net, MUST believe this concept in order that the religion must retain its popularity, ie cash flow. Both the FLDS and LDS use this concept to the MAX. The difference being that LDS are very good business people while the FLDS are NOT AT ALL. This concept is a basic doctrine of Beelzebub. Therefore the LDS dumped polygamy and alot of other things and made the flock happy and secure in their nonsense. Because most LDS don't understand Mormon Doctrine or the glaring contridictions it has, or its history, they take this mixture of doctrinal pablum and eat it up like there is no tomorrow. Like throwing fish food out to fish in a pond. While sending in their checks. The FLDS also tend to use this doctrine alot and the members of both LDS and FLDS become non-thinking robots to the religion. Becoming unknowing tools of the dark side.

Anonymous said...

Polygamy, OK, no matter what your leaders try and tell you, GBH, they can wine, they can moan, they can deny, deny, and DENY, and scream untill they are blue and pass out. Polygamy is a CORNER STONE of Mormon (LDS) Doctrine. Is WAS instituted FROM the beginning. Although its pratice was generally hidden and kept secret from outsiders, IT WAS , IT IS and WILL always and FOREVER be a CORNER STONE of Mormon Doctrine. NO MATTER what kind of Hocus Pocus or Presto Chango and other nonsense the leardship tries to pull on you in order to try and convince you it's not there, ITS THERE, IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN THERE. IT IS VERY OBVIOUS THAT ITS THERE. It has not gone anywhere, NEITHER IS IT GOING ANYWHERE. Live with it. It's part of your religion. An integral part of it. The sooner you figure that out , the better off you will be.

Anonymous said...

Ah! ots we are now beginning to see the duplicity of your verbal conquest against truth.

Re. your 5/12/06 10:04

Your expletive, directed toward me, the first part "smart" was right on target. The second part, which I need not repeat, must be directed at yourself since the comment was 180 degrees off target. Such verbal abusive commentary is not necessary for me to be able to communicate, you must have been directing it at yourself.

Now, do you see that verbal exchange can move forward without having to resort to your more base habits and instincts.

four calling birds, three french hens, two turtle doves etc.

rcn

Anonymous said...

This is very simple. Voting to continue polygamy would have allowed the government even more opportunities to persecute and prosecute LDS members. That is why the smoke screen of the manifesto was fabricated. It allowed them to continue to practice polygamy while distracting the federal government. And that's exactly what they did for decades to come. The LDS Church never got serious about leaving the practice of polygamy until its membership became very large and those practicing it were mostly very old or had passed away. Then the percentage left trying to keep it going were a very small percentage. Neglegable, when compared to the very large membership. However, there are cases of LDS higher leadership still continuing with it into the 1960s and possibly beyond. The witch hunts for it are new, it has been tolerated for MANY years in the LDS Church. I would assume once GBH is out of there it could become tolerated there again. A true Mormon believes in the principal , no matter what the official line of disinformation and endless denial tells you. You need to look past the smoke screen. To truth of what LDS Mormonism really is.

ATAR_i said...

Comment Me and my family watched Work and the Glory and it was dissappointing. We realized it was made by the mormon church pretty early into it.

Question Does anyone have a scan - of the original prophecy about polygamy? Are they available online - actual visual documentation of Josephs revelations regarding this doctrine?

Anonymous said...

Straight Shots back,

You don't need a scan,you just need to google
"Plural Marriage" Doctrine and Covenants - Book of Mormon" --- there are thousands of sights related to these searches and if you want to read any of the Fundamentalist writings of one of the early leaders of the Fundamentalist movement just to see where they took the original teachings then google -- Joseph W. Musser and Plural or Celestial Marriage.
I believe you can google Leroy Sunderland Johnson and find some of his printed sermons.
Its amazing to wonder who has had the time to type all that stuff into sights.
Happy Searching.

Anonymous said...

I have a friend who joined the Mormon church who thinks that polygamy will be legalized within the next 10 years. So how can someone like my friend, who was not raised with the Mormon beliefs, think that such a thing as polygamy would be accepted to the point of legalization within the next decade if it was not currantly a STRONG belief of the LDS Mormon church?

This friend did not have ancestors who were polygamists. So it is not a situation like many in Utah where this person is thinking about Grampa Young who had 5 wives. This friend joined the church as an adult. But this friend is an important person in the LDS Mormon church of today's beliefs.

I am just trying to figure out why this friend is so convinced that polygamy will be legalized in the next 10 years.

If this person is a convert (without personal family ties in polygamy), and holds a high position in the church, then why the push for making polygamy an accepted practice, unless someone in the LDS Mormon church is convincing the converts that it is a basic tenet of the LDS Mormon church?

ATAR_i said...

question - was it written in any government documents that LDS must stop the practice of polygamy in order to gain statehood.

Firstly, it was my understanding when I joined this blog - that many LDS didn't even believe they had roots in polygamy.

Now, it seems the church will admit to it, but states that stopping the doctrine had nothing to do with statehood.

Of course - we know it did....but, documentation is always nice.

Anonymous said...

The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 touched all the issues at dispute between Congress and the Mormons. The act disincorporated both the Church and the Perpetual Emigration Fund on the ground that they fostered polygamy.

The act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. It dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000.

The act also dealt with the separation of church and state and with courts, militia, education, elections, immigration, and woman suffrage. Utah women had been granted the franchise in 1870, but now lost it. The act was enforced by the U. S. marshal and a host of deputies. Other matters dealt with by the act included:

Required civil marriage licenses
Required voters, jurors, and public officials to deny polygamy
Replaced local judges with federally appointed judges
Removed local control in school textbook choice

ATAR_i said...

thanks

Anonymous said...

Am I the only person wondering how Onthe street knew that rcn's post "three calling birds and a partridge in a pear tree." was from a song?

FLDS don't "do" Christmas caroles, to my knowledge. If onthestreet is really from the FLDS, then how did he know this line came from a song?

rcn just said it was a Mantra. rcn did not say it was a song. hmmm

Anonymous said...

Arar_i.

I think that documentation written in any government papers is not likely.

Utah was a territory and they were actually under US "rule". By becoming a state (instead of a territory) they could run the state as they saw fit - they would gain some autonomy from the US government.

They had applied for statehood 5 or 6 times and each time it was denied. The deal with renouncing polygamy was their ticket to statehood. The Woodruff Manifesto was announced and Utah became a state.

So, it is just "historically accepted" that giving up polygamy got Utah its statehood.

Anonymous said...

So if the 1890 Woodruff Manifesto REALLY meant that the LDS church would give up practicing polygamy, then why the need for the 1905 Manifesto made by Joseph F. Smith telling the LDS church followers to STOP practicing polygamy.

This whole PR move by the LDS church is such a JOKE.

They keep claiming in their PR statements that the church gave up polygamy in 1890.

But they never seem to mention the fact that Joseph F. Smith had to tell the church members again 15 years later to really knock it off with the plural wives business.

Anonymous said...

It's also FOUR not " 3 calling birds". Case in point.

Anonymous said...

Thank you 5/15/06 4:08 for calling fact to attention of my mis-count relating to the fowl represented in this song, "The Twelve Days of Christmas."

I know that it has it's roots in Christian Christmas tradition. However, since the emphasis is upon winter seasonal secular events, rather than having anything to do with the birth of The Christ Child, I have mentally placed it in the same category as Jingle Bells and Frosty the Snowman.

The words were used by myself as a refrain to a mantra usually spewed by ots in his tirades. I might have said yada, yada, yada etc. It would be just as effective. The point here is that ots has cut and pasted the same junk so often that it has become mantra, a repetetive chanting not supporting any sense of belief, just a repetetative noise as an effort to show those who care to watch or listen as to just how sincere your verbage is in relationship to your subject. Mantra generally has no real meaning. It is taught to humans as an important of their worship of a diety or to gain the subliminity of peace. It has no purpose other than to assure that the participant participates so that he/she can possess self-righteousness.

rcn

ATAR_i said...

rcn

I've heard OTS's mantra about immaculate conception soooo much I thought I should just add that in the Journal of Discourses Vol 1 pg 50 President Bringham Young teaches

"When the virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost"

"When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits…" (Ibid., vol. 4, p. 218). "The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood — was begotten of His Father, as we were of our fathers" (Ibid., vol. 8, p. 115).

Apostle Orson Pratt taught something similar:

"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father"

...and so did President Joseph Fielding Smith:
"Our Father in heaven is the Father of Jesus Christ, both in the spirit and in the flesh.…I believe firmly that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh.…not as the Son of the Holy Ghost, but the Son of God.…Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1. p. 18).

so did Aposlte Bruce R McConkie:

"Our Father in heaven is the Father of Jesus Christ, both in the spirit and in the flesh.…I believe firmly that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh.…not as the Son of the Holy Ghost, but the Son of God.…Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1. p. 18).

and Ezra Taft Benson:

"Our Father in heaven is the Father of Jesus Christ, both in the spirit and in the flesh.…I believe firmly that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh.…not as the Son of the Holy Ghost, but the Son of God.…Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1. p. 18).

So basically - it looks like LDS doesn't even believe in immaculate conception EVEN FOR MARY

What a hoot - and here OTS is all up in arms over immaculate this and that.

Some barrage by OTS to follow about immaculate conception - but you already know why I think he's so into that (it justifies his lack of attraction to females and makes it something profoundly religious - even though it's just really homosexuality).

Anonymous said...

If street were one bit accurate about immaculate conception, it would be very dangerous to attend a public meeting or public worship. Men might accidentally commit immaculate adultery with the women behind or in front of them and result in illegitimate children. Sorry Street, even in swimming pools, immaculate conception don't work.

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
mugwump said...

God, being creator, is not hampered by the laws of biology or physics. These exist as a part of the absolute fact that His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. How foolish to presume that man has the ability to understand the mind of God. Read Isaiah Chapter 55.

fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
fundy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

All I can say after reading all of this religious mumbo jumbo is HOLY COW!

Anonymous said...

If you think cows are holy, maybe you should profess Hinduism and move to India.

rcn

onthestreet said...

Anonymous said (5/16/2006 12:07 AM):
All I can say after reading all of this religious mumbo jumbo is HOLY COW!


STREET’s Reply: Righto, and much of what Muggy posts protrudes therefrom, what might be considered HOLY SHI..

mugwump said...

We are perfectly capable of reading between the lines and understanding your verbal inference. I believe that what you express at large is exempliary of your persona. However, professing to be HOLY is stretching it a bit.

Anonymous said...

Right Mugwump, but I think you mis-spelled the word. I should have been "wholely."

rcn

onthestreet said...

To be pure is to be HOLY, and to be gathered is to be WHOLY. Do you understand it?

The Vav adds something (connection):

In the beginning of Creation, when Infinite Light filled all reality, G d contracted His Light to create hollow empty space, as it were, the "place" necessary for the existence of finite worlds. Into this vacuum God drew down, figuratively speaking, a single line of light, from the Infinite Source. This ray of light is the secret of the letter vav. Though the line is singular in appearance, it nonetheless possesses two dimensions, an external as well as an internal force, both of which take part in the process of Creation and the continuous interaction between the creative power and created reality.

The external force of the line is the power to differentiate and separate the various aspects of reality, thereby establishing hierarchical order, up and down, within Creation. The internal force of the line is the power to reveal the inherent interinclusion of the various aspects of reality, one in the other, thereby joining them together as an organic whole. This property of the letter vav, in its usage in Hebrew, is referred to as vav hachibur, the vav of connection"--"and." The first vav of the Torah--"In the beginning G d created the heavens and [vav] the earth"--serves to join spirit and matter, heaven and the earth, throughout Creation.

ATAR_i said...

Nice cut and paste job OTS - you did realize that Jewish people do not write out the name of God, they write G-d, or G d.

The Mystical Significance of the Hebrew Letters

http://www.inner.org/hebleter/vav.htm

I'll post the link and the source so we don't have to go through the whole Hebrew alphabet with OTS sounding all intelligent (hold on, I think I threw up in my mouth) and such.

Uncle Sunch said...

anyone with any knowledge of history knows that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. even if the "modern" prophet is ashamed of it there is nothing anyone can say to change it. and yes mormonism was alive for a few years before polygamy was introduced. at least in modern America however the practice itself is as old as the earth and many countries and cultures still practice it.

Anonymous said...

atar_i

If I remember, Hebrew has no vowels. An e-mail circulated recently that had a long series of words, grossly mispelled, but containing all the letters needed to complete the word and beginning with the word's first letter. It was proven that people with good intelligence can read such language and understand it's meaning. There is something about the human mind that somehow earrange the letters and thus can make sense out of nonsense. You may have see the e-mail.

rcn

ATAR_i said...

I never saw it : (

You can forward it to my email

atar_i@hotmail.com

onthestreet said...

ATARI Said (5/25/2006 9:11 AM):

I'll post the link and the source so we don't have to go through the whole Hebrew alphabet with OTS sounding all intelligent (hold on, I think I threw up in my mouth) and such.

STREET's Reply: I'm glad to see you have learned a little, little sister. Carry on, and be sure to keep the bib so your confessed vomiting doesn't sicken everyone, and we will all be sure to burp you once in awhile.

mugwump said...

streakie the freekie

Atar_i has forgotten more in the way of general knowledge than you will ever obtain. She is capable of entering intelligent discussion on a wide variety of subjects and give intelligent answers to somewhat complex questions. She is able to argue her point with determination and fact. You, however just dodge the issue and plow on. I'd sure hate for you to work my field. No row would follow any sort of pattern. Zig-zags, barren spots appear that you never aquainted to a plow. Just a random earth turner. You could do better mucking out a barn. At least that job wouldn't be above your capabilities.

ATAR_i said...

I'm just glad we don't have to do the alphabet - I'd even wear the proverbial bib if I thought it would help.

onthestreet said...

You, however just dodge the issue and plow on. I'd sure hate for you to work my field. No row would follow any sort of pattern. Zig-zags, barren spots appear that you never aquainted to a plow. Just a random earth turner. You could do better mucking out a barn. At least that job wouldn't be above your capabilities. 5/29/2006 8:59 PM


STREET's Reply: You are so right about the MUK. I've been shoveling you know for nigh over a year. You've even named yourself that: MUKWUMP, which of course is very close to MUK RUMP, the stuff that comes from that portion of your anatomy or diet.

Anyhow, about plowing that field. Any farmer who sees a dead stump in the field, or a hard-hearted stone, NEVER just plows right into it. He'd smash up his equipment, see? Is that how you plow fields? Those kinds of nuisences are just plowed around.

onthestreet said...

ATAR_i said...
I'm just glad we don't have to do the alphabet - I'd even wear the proverbial bib if I thought it would help. 5/29/2006 9:21 PM

STREET's Reply: What do you mean, your "glad you don't have to do the alphabet"? Those are heavenly lights that make up the Word. You are saying that you hate the Word, or that it bores you.

Repent and sin no more.