Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Mormons and Polygamy

There is a very good reason Mormons are associated with polygamy. The originator of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith, made it very plain, in doctrine and his deeds, that one WAS REQUIRED to enter into polygamy in order to secure himself the highest degree of glory in the next life. Joseph Smith had many wifes and so did most Mormons in good standing with the church. This fact is the reason polygamy will live on forever, in all the sects and denominations of the Mormon religion.

You NEED TO UNDERSTAND that polygamy and Mormon Doctrine are inseparably connected.
It was so from the start and continues to be and will always be. There will NEVER be a time when this is not the case. The Mormon sects will continue to observe what the founder started. This is never going to change.

50 comments:

TBM said...

You're completely wrong, Barlow. Most of them were not polygamous. It's estimated that only about 1 in 4 married more than once, and of those who did, only a relative handful married had more than two.

An examination of those wives' ages is also revealing. Generally, the man didn't marry a second time until around 20 - 25 years after the firsttime, and usually that second wife was young enough to be his daughter. You doget an unsavory impression of "trading in the old for the new".

Sorry Barlow, but polygamy was never the centerpiece of Mormonism that the FLDS like to think it was. There was never any suggestion that a man's salvation was at risk if he was only married once. Polygamy was an option that men could exercise if they wanted to, but the religion was about far more than just that.

As Alma illustrated with a quote from Brigham Young yesterday on an earlier thread: "But to preach the Gospel, save the children of men, build up the kingdom of God, produce righteousness in the midst of the people; ...and to usher in and establish the reign of universal peace, is our business, no matter how many wives a man has got, that makes no difference here or there." (BY 06/04/1871)

Anonymous said...

I am sorry tbn,
but Plural Marriage was the "secret blessing" from the very beginning with the Annointed Quorum "Holy Order" a click that met on the second floor of Joseph's Smith store.

Infact Smith lost no time collecting his harem of plural wives before his dear Emma found out from the special message delivered to her in the D&C 132.

No evidence of plural marriage at Kirkland or any elect groups.

Infact William Law was one of the original quorum members who did not beleive in plural marriage. He was voted out of the Holy Order and then started the Nauvoo Expositor that exposed Smith plural marriage doctrine.

I won't go into the rest of the story, but Smith and his click did not like being exposed and destroyed the press.

But the message was out there and still is.

muggsey said...

Another proof of the falsness of the Mormon faith: Joseph Smith is the focal point of your belief. God is used only as a convenience to make the religion more palpable to the less informed. It is a bogus religion, period.

fttc said...

TBM

Let's get more light on the quote you are using. Here is a little more of it:

"But we should all live so that the spirit of revelation could dictate and write on the heart and tell us what we should do, instead of the traditions of our parents and teachers. But to do this we must become like little children; and Jesus says if we do not we cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. How simple it is! Live free from envy, malice, wrath, strife, bitter feelings, and evil speaking in our families and about our neighbors and friends, and all the inhabitants of the earth, wherever we meet them. Live so that our consciences are free, clean and clear. This is as simple as anything can be, and yet it is one of the hardest things to get people to understand, or rather to practice; for you may get them to understand it, but the great difficulty is to get them to practice it. If we, both priest and people, will practice this, the Spirit of the Lord can dictate and tell us our duty, and when that is presented before us we will go and do it.
But, instead of such principles as these occupying people's minds now-a-days, it is, "How many wives have you, Mr. Young? Oh, I do want to ask Mr. Young how many wives he has." Ladies who come into my office very frequently say, "I wonder if it would hurt his feelings if I were to ask him how many wives he has?" Let me say to all creation that I would as lief they should ask me that question as any other; but I would rather see them anxious to learn about the Gospel. Having wives is a secondary consideration; it is within the pale of duty, and consequently, it is all right. But to preach the Gospel..."

Alma said...

"No evidence of plural marriage at Kirkland or any elect groups."

Not true, Anon1129. William McClelland claimed that Emma told him she witnessed Joseph Smith's first plural wedding in Kirtland. The wife was Fanny Alger. Don't confuse the date the revelation was reduced to writing with the first instance of knowledge of the principle. The revelation was recorded due to Hyrum Smith's opinion that with it in writing, he could convince Emma of its rightness. Joseph Smith felt otherwise but dictated it anyway.

Smith and his "clique" had been accused before in several newspapers and this wasn't new. The difference in this instance was the risk of mob violence against the publishers since it was occurring in the center or a Mormon community. The city council voted to abate the newspaper as a public nuisance based upon legal precedent rather than risk bloodshed that might accompany the action of an angry mob of Mormons.

Uncle Ratt said...

Alma,
It is a misconception that Joseph Smith was assasinated over his living polygamy. JS was arrested and taken to Carthage because he destroyed the Expositor printing press. This was in gross violation of the bill of rights (freedom of the press). This was the act that so enraged the surrounding people. Citizens of the United States are guaranteed the freedom of speech and of the media. This was the big mistake JS made - thinking that he could abrogate the bill of rights. This might be taken as a warning to WJ (don't mess with our freedom of agency).

TBM said...

fttc, thanks -- I think! I'm honestly not sure if your quote was intended to contradict or support my post! I've read it before. I don't remember the context. It seems to indicate that Brigham Young felt that there were more important considerations within the faith than polygamous marriage.

I thought I should add that the whole concept of requiring people to enter into marriages they didn't want, was entirely alien to Joseph Smith's nature and character. Jovial, upbeat, joking, comfortable, pleasant, charming -- these were all adjectives applied to Joseph Smith even by people who didn't like him. He was forward, likeable, easy-going, laid-back. The whole idea of coercion simply was not his style.


In the fourteen years that he led the church, the church's membership grew from zero to at least 30,000 -- on two continents! His death was bitterly mourned by almost all his followers. Almost the entire population of Nauvoo lined the main street as his coffin was brought into town.

Compare this to the reaction of the Iraqi people to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The LDS church is not the legacy of a tyrant, a dictator, who forces people into situations they abhor!

TBM said...

This was in gross violation of the bill of rights (freedom of the press). This was the act that so enraged the surrounding people.

Burning contrary presses went on constantly in the Old West! Down by the Mason-Dixon line, burning abolitionist presses was almost sport! If I remember rightly, about 10 presses had been destroyed in Illinois alone in the ten years prior to Joseph Smith's destruction of the Expositor. None of them enraged the public's senses before. I suspect the "freedom of the press" thing was an excuse conjured up afterward to justify the lynch mob's behavior.

Anonymous said...

Well Alma I will stand down on the Kirkland issue. I will look into that matter more closely.

And I am not confused about the date of the revelation. Smith had about 16 plural wives before the revelation was "spoken" to Emma.

But, I am confused on this, wasn't D&C 132, a revelation from "God".

So it was put to pen by a husband and brother-in-law to convinence and threaten a woman, interesting.

As for the newspaper the Nauvoo Expositor it was more than abated. It was destroyed by a Mormon mob not by legal precedent.

That would of been a better solution.

Eliza R. Snow recorded, "The apostates, aided by our most bitter Gentile enemies abroad, established a press in Nauvoo, and commenced the issue of a periodical entitled "The Expositor", in which appeared the most flagrant, scurrilous, libelous articles against the leading authorities of the Church. The mayor, in connection with the city council, declared it a nuisance, and by their order was demolished".

And the rest is history and the demise of the Smith's.

ATAR_i said...

What does LDS say about JS taking women as 'plural wives' who were already married to other men in his congregation?

TBM said...

Atar_i:What does LDS say about JS taking women as 'plural wives' who were already married to other men

It's been alleged that he did. But it's by no means certain. Remember, Joseph Smith had a lot of enemies, and the slander and libel laws were a lot weaker than they are today.

The LDS church today would almost certainly excommunicate anybody who did that.

TBM said...

It was destroyed by a Mormon mob not by legal precedent.

It was hardly a mob. An order was issued by the city council (after ruling the Expositor a nuisance) to the commander of the city's militia, and was executed by all accounts in good order.

As for legal precedent, Thomas Ford, governor of Illinois at the time, and former judge of the Illinois Supreme Court, was ambivalent about its legality. In his memoirs, he did not rule out that Joseph Smith might have broken the law. But he accepted that, given the powers the Illinois Legislature had granted to Nauvoo in its charter, Joseph Smith might well have been acting within his rights and duties as Mayor of Nauvoo. Thomas Ford's conclusion was that it could only have been decided by a legal trial.

Current legal opinion is that the militia overstepped its authority in physically destroying the Expositor's printing press -- that much was vandalism, and the city of Nauvoo was unquestionably liable. But the city had every right, according to the power of its charter, to shut the Expositor down.

fttc said...

I meant it not so much as a contradiction but to clear up what BY was saying. I thought you were using the quote to say that plural marriage was not a required doctrine of the LDS faith. That is not what BY was saying. "...it is within the pale of duty..." It was the gossip of how many wives this man or the other had that he was trying to quell.

fttc said...

I might add one point to the mix about the Expositor's destruction. JS had an extended communication with Governor Ford. He emphatically stated several times that he felt he had the right and duty as the Mayor under the city charter to act as he did. He followed every time with the statement that if he had broken the law he and the Town Council were willing to answer for it. He was not taken to Carthage on a legal pretext. He went of his own accord to satisfy the Governor's request. This is one reason he was not locked in a cell at the Carthage jail and was allowed to have visitors come and go. He had already been cleared of any wrong doing in a court of law as respects the Expositor.

Anonymous said...

WOW, fttc you can spin history with the best.

Anonymous said...

Hey, is there someone out there who had relatives at Carthage who were not Mormon.

Alma said...

Joseph Smith originally surrendered to the authorities for the charge of "riot" for having ordered the destruction of the press. After having posted bail for that offense, he was immediately re-arrested on the charge of treason--a capital offense for which there was no bail. He and the others weren't in the jail cell because the sheriff felt kindly towards them, not because he had been cleared of treason. The treason charge was merely a pretense to keep them in jail where the mob could get to them.

Even though the courts might not have supported the Nauvoo city council in its decision, the fact that the surrounding citizens were “enraged” still didn’t authorize them to murder Joseph and Hyrum Smith. Similar acts of removal of nuisances had been accomplished by previous city councils and the Nauvoo council was acting on those precedents. The publication of a scurrilous detective magazine was likewise shut down years later in Indiana. It went all the way to the Supreme Court and the city council lost by one vote. That means that 4 Justices agreed with Joseph Smith and a majority of the Indiana court did as well. People like to think this was a slam dunk against Joseph Smith; but they just haven’t done their homework.

Alma said...

Atari asked, "What does LDS say about JS taking women as 'plural wives' who were already married to other men in his congregation?"

They generally point out that all women who were sealed to Joseph Smith weren't necessarily his wives. I suggest you google book reviews of Todd Compton's "In Sacred Lonliness" for references. I know of several good reviews out there.

ATAR_i said...

Yes, I've read diaries, and even the history of the mormon church gives details about his 'marriage' to other mens wives, sometimes without their knowledge.

So, in some cases the women had two husbands. I was just wondering what the official church position on this was.

onthestreet said...

TBM Said (7/26/2006 8:44 AM): Sorry Barlow, but polygamy was never the centerpiece of Mormonism that the FLDS like to think it was. There was never any suggestion that a man's salvation was at risk if he was only married once. Polygamy was an option that men could exercise if they wanted to, but the religion was about far more than just that.

The Lord refers to Plurality of wives as “the fulness of my Gospel”, and 3 Nephi 16: “At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel … behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them. ... D&C 132:4 - For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned.

Anonymous said...

Curious to hear some of the other "lies" you claim have been propagated.

Anonymous said...

What are some of the other "lies"- discluding the polygamy issue?

Alma said...

Atari said, "So, in some cases the women had two husbands."

I don't think that's correct. A man may be sealed for "time and eternity" for "time" or for "eternity." I believe that historically, the Church's position has been that women who had living husbands who were sealed to Joseph Smith weren't wives and did not cohabit with Joseph. They were sealed for eternity and that sealing didn't interfere with their earthly marriage. Consequently they each had only had one husband. Mary Rollins Lightner was sealed to JS, but lived only with her husband who never was a member of the Church.

TBM said...

Muggsey: Another proof of the falsness of the Mormon faith: Joseph Smith is the focal point of your belief

You know, Muggsey, this was actually a serious concern of mine for some years in the past. It bothered me deeply that Mormons did seem so focussed on Joseph Smith, and referred relatively little to Jesus Christ.

I'm okay with it these days. I think it is a weakness of Mormons, and they probably should obsess less with Joseph Smith. But Joseph Smith is their hero! And eventually, I realized that Joseph Smith only ever preached the word of Christ. So, in talking of Joseph Smith's teachings, Mormons are speaking of Christ's teachings. So I'm fine with it these days.

ATAR_i said...

So, if JS wasn't married to them, he was just having an affair?

Alma said...

Atari asked, "So, if JS wasn't married to them, he was just having an affair?"

Why do you automatically presume that Joseph Smith slept with these women? Is there any reason to charge him with evil other than your assumption that he lived with them as wives even though they were married to other men? If you'll read Joseph F. Smith's testimony in the Smoot Hearings, you'll find that he explains that a sealing for eternity didn't carry with it the right of cohabitation.

ATAR_i said...

I believe it's in the large volumes of the history of the mormon church. I almost picked them up the other day. They are an official historical record of the LDS church put out by LDS.

That I can tell, what I did read wasn't anything salacious, it just was very matter of fact. So and So was married for to this man. she was married to JS for a small period of time in the middle of that time. I'll have to do some research on the gal so you can check up on the gal I"m talking about.

muggsey said...

tbm

Well, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush are all my heros, along with Daniel Boone, Sam Houston, Jim Bowie, James Butler Bonham, Audie Murphy, Col. Robert Turner USA (Ret.), a benevolent and honorable man named Clarence Clements also. All of these imperfect persons were, in their own way able to achieve success in difficult times and against innumerable foes. I respect them, but in no way do I revere them and every single one of the abovementioned, with the possible exceptions of Thomas Jefferson, Sam Houston and Jim Bowie lived lives above reproach. They were good, honorable, fair minded men, but had at their core an assurance that they would not accept status quo and remain in their present circumstance as 'near' slaves to a dispotic systen effecting not only their lives but the lives of many other people. They acted for the betterment of society, not to gain personal wealth, or fame.

onthestreet said...

You are describing the Prophets to a tee, Mukky, but many of the historical figures you mention were able to emulate them somewhat, granted.

Anonymous said...

What about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Elijah, Peter, James, John, and Paul etc?

onthestreet said...

Yes, these were the prophets in their day, the best men on the planet. Every generation has a true prophet, and only one at a time rules over the rest, the sabboth, the redemption process, as undershepherds in the Lord, whom He calls "My Brethren".

Anonymous said...

Yep, but I'm the true prophet, not Warren. There is none else but me; worship me and me only, even if it hurts and destroys natural feelings for dissident family members.

ATAR_i said...

No, it's a fttc!

Anonymous said...

FTTC is the one and only? I thought it was muggsey! I'll go home and pray about it until the hormones, er., I mean the burnings within, give me a psychological experience a.k.a testimony as to which of the two is the one and only.

fttc said...

????

ATAR_i said...

Fttc - it means we respect you. I couldn't think of anyone in FLDS who I would nominate to be 'the one'.

I know it doesn't work that way - but if it did, someone like you would be a refreshing change!

Anonymous said...

FTTC & Musgsey, I am 8:54 and 6:25, and was using a little sarcasm showing the absolute absurdity of the one-man-rule. Please don't either of you take offense.

fttc said...

I am flattered, but no thanks. Just thinking about it makes me greatful for my own troubles. :-)

Anonymous said...

Yes, your proof of obsurdity of the one man rule, proves it obsurd that there ever were prophets, and that the Bible could be true.

ATAR_i said...

I don't understand your comment anon 6:32.

muggsey said...

8:54 & 6:25 absurdity noted! comment appreciated!

Anonymous said...

6:32 You're starting to see the light! One myth is as good as another.

TBM said...

Muggsey: Thomas Jefferson, Sam Houston and Jim Bowie lived lives above reproach

That's questionable. I take it you're unaware Thomas Jefferson kept slaves? When he wrote that all men are created equal, he obviously didn't think black people were human ...

I'm kidding. Just to prove a point (although Jefferson did keep slaves!)

Nobody lives above reproach. Everybody is mortal; everybody screws up; everybody gives in to temptations and weaknesses. And standards change over time -- what is acceptable in one country or time, often is not in another century or time.

And if you want to examine an eighteenth or nineteenth-century person's actions from a twenty-first century perspective, focussing only on what seems bad in the twenty-first century while ignoring the good and the acceptable in his day, you won't have much difficulty making him look like the most appalling man that ever lived! Be it Thomas Jefferson. Be it Joseph Smith.

TBM said...

proves it obsurd that there ever were prophets, and that the Bible could be true

Why are atheists always so rude and condescending toward people who disagree with them?

Especially when they're the first to invoke their Constitutional right to believe (or not) as they please!

TBM said...

you won't have much difficulty making him look like the most appalling man that ever lived!

I have an idea. I'd like to conduct a little non-scientific experiment. I'm thinking of a certain man. I'll give you some clues that are all good about him, and ignore the bad, and you all have to guess who it is.

This man was a decorated war hero. He was an artist whose works today are worth a lot of money. He also spent some years living on the streets, but pulled himself up by his bootstraps, and after years of struggle, saved his nation from chaos and the brink of civil war. He rescued his country's economy from near-bankruptcy and hyper-inflation, and made it one of the most influential nations on Earth. He united his people and inspired similar movements the world over. He oversaw the construction of magnificent buildings, many of which are still in use today. He built up his military and led them to many glorious victories. Finally, he gave his life for his country, preferring to shoot himself rather than fall into the hands of his enemies.

He never drank or smoked. He encouraged strong, loving families. He was fond of children. And he loved animals to the point that he gave up meat and became a vegetarian.

Now, who is this man? As a clue, he's one of the most famous men that ever lived. Every one of you has heard of him, and probably knows quite a lot about him. And it isn't Joseph Smith or Brigham Young!

I'll give you all 24 hours to figure it out!

Anonymous said...

Hitler...and in only three minutes

TBM said...

Oh dang it!!!!!!

And I was hoping for some fun responses!!!!!!

onthestreet said...

fttc said (8/02/2006 10:01 AM):

I am flattered, but no thanks. Just thinking about it makes me greatful for my own troubles. :-)


STREET's Reply: That is correct, you don't have the clubs or the balls for the job, things required to run the bases and complete the course.

ATAR_i said...

Yes, I'm certain warren has a variety of clubs.

Balls, well, I think you'd have to make an incision to find them - they are undescended.

warren doesn't look like he can exercise so perhaps running bases and completing courses might be something he's have to build up to.

But, if I had to guess who you were describing OTS - a caveman baseball player?

onthestreet said...

That is correct. He is undescended into the grossness of a gross world, but dwells on a higher plane.