Post Reply
Page 4 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Modern Day Polygamy in Mainstream LDS Members
7 years ago  ::  Jan 07, 2008 - 4:58PM #31
Gaia-j
Posts: 636
[QUOTE=splendid;193828]Gaia,

Why would polygamy be necessary for this? I don't see the link between "true justice, prosperity, freedom, and human dignity"  and particularly  sanctification and polygamy.  If the first thing that needs to be understood is that it was a small part then the second would be how does it facilitate the program? 
Thanks
[/QUOTE]



GAIA:

Hi Splendid --

It was considered part of the entire principle known as "Celestial Marriage" , which was meant to sanctify the human soul (body and spirit) --
If you think a moment about the kind of self-possession and discipline, the lack of ego, the patience, understanding, wisdom, and other qualities that actually living this principle would involve and would likely build into the character of those who did practice it -- it becomes a little clearer what part it would have in sanctifying their souls *smile*.

And in fact,  those in the modern LDS Church who think they are practicing "Celestial Marriage" with only one partner, are (according to previous prophets) WRONG:

Brigham Young:
“The ONLY MEN WHO BECOME GODS, even the Sons of God, are those WHO ENTER INTO POLYGAMY.”
(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269)


Brigham Young -
"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned,"
Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, p. 266 (1855)


Heber C. Kimball -
Opponents of polygamy will be "cut off" by God,
Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 108 (1856)


Apostle Joseph F. Smith -
"Plural marriage is not some sort of superfluity or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. Marriage to only one woman is only partial compliance to the law of exaltation...."
Journal of Discourses, vol. 20, p. 28 (1878)

Here's the extended quote:

"Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one.

I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There is no blessing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part--and is good so far as it goes--and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions.

But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it."

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.28 - p.29, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878




Apostle Joseph F. Smith -

"... As before stated no man can obtain the benefits of one law by the observance of another, however faithful he may be in that which he does, nor can he secure to himself the fullness of any blessing without he fulfills the law upon which it is predicated, but he will receive the benefit of the law he obeys. ... I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in this Church, who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned, I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify in the name of Jesus that it does mean that. "

Journal of Discourses, Vol.20, p.31, Joseph F. Smith, July 7, 1878



Thus, it ws part of the entire priciple of Eternal, Celestial Marriage, which (according to Joseph Smith when he revealed it)  was part of the social organization of Zion and the Kingdom of God, as well as the requirements for exaltation -- Read D&C 132.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 07, 2008 - 6:58PM #32
Suchele
Posts: 13
I'm confused. Is there any LDS person here who actually believes Joseph Smith started polygamy because he was commanded to by God? It seems to me that the statement "by their fruits ye shall know them" has good application here. If the LDS religion is true, then it was founded by a prophet, who would have to be a good person, right? Fallible, I grant you, but not so fallible that he would wantonly go against such vital principles as chastity.

On the other hand, if it's not true, who cares? Joseph Smith could be the most well-intended person, or a perverse snake.

I just can't comprehend this middle-of-the-road concept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who just happened to go out and have illicit sexual relationships whenever he wanted and moreover, taught people it was all okey-dokey. What the heck with that?
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 07, 2008 - 7:14PM #33
Suchele
Posts: 13
"And in fact,  those in the modern LDS Church who think they are practicing "Celestial Marriage" with only one partner, are (according to previous prophets) WRONG"


I have to disagree with you here. All your quotes must be taken in context. It's clear those who fought polygamy at the time it was practiced were going against God's will, but those who practice it now are equally against his will. Jacob makes it perfectly clear how the Lord feels about polygamy, that it is an exception, and not the rule. I daresay, though I have no impressive quotes such as yours, that you could find many indicating that living in polygamy would keep one from God's presence if you were to look during the time following the manifesto.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 07, 2008 - 11:34PM #34
Gaia-j
Posts: 636
[QUOTE=Suchele;195816]"And in fact,  those in the modern LDS Church who think they are practicing "Celestial Marriage" with only one partner, are (according to previous prophets) WRONG"


I have to disagree with you here. All your quotes must be taken in context.
It's clear those who fought polygamy at the time it was practiced were going against God's will, but those who practice it now are equally against his will. Jacob makes it perfectly clear how the Lord feels about polygamy, that it is an exception, and not the rule. I daresay, though I have no impressive quotes such as yours, that you could find many indicating that living in polygamy would keep one from God's presence if you were to look during the time following the manifesto.[/QUOTE]



GAIA:

They do need to be read in context, but they also need to be read with an undersanding of Church history.

IN fact, one of the reasons it was emphasized that nobody can just go out and start practicing polygamy is because several of the leading brethren of Joseph's day started doing just that.  It was called "Spiritual Wifery" and was the cause of several leading brethren being excommunicated or nearly so.

However, those who think everyone just suddenly stopped practicing polygamy  after the Manifesto, are WRONG -- in fact, polygamous marriages continued to be (quietly)  solemnized in the Salt Lake (and other) temple(s)  for nearly a   DECADE after the Manifesto.   For more on this, please see:

   -  Post-Manifesto Plural Marriage: www.ldshistory.net/pc/postman.htm

   - www.ldshistory.net/pc/misleading.htm

   - Post-manifesto Mormon Polygamy:
www.lds-mormon.com/second_manifesto.shtml

   - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_Manifesto

  - rameumptom.blogspot.com/2004/05/lingering-legacy-of-post-manifesto.html

  -  www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/mormonpolygamy.htm

  -  By Common Consent » The Lingering Legacy of Post-Manifesto Polygamy:  www.bycommonconsent.com/2004/05/the-lin … -polygamy/



Also, your questions about Joseph Smith:

  SUCHELE:

I'm confused. Is there any LDS person here who actually believes Joseph Smith started polygamy because he was commanded to by God? It seems to me that the statement "by their fruits ye shall know them" has good application here. If the LDS religion is true, then it was founded by a prophet, who would have to be a good person, right? Fallible, I grant you, but not so fallible that he would wantonly go against such vital principles as chastity.




GAIA:

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but what you've been told of Joseph Smith by the LDS Church is just NOT the whole story.  There are considerable reasons why many feel that judging him by his "fruits" leads to some very troubling "judgments" --

1.  Contrary to the supposed LAW governing the practice of Polygamy (according to D&C 132) he did NOT only refrain from getting Emma's permission -- he frequently LIED and MISREPRESENTED the truth to her;


2.  He pressured Helen Mar Kimball --  the 14 year old daughter of Heber and Vilate Kimball - to marry him, on the basis of ensuring her parents exaltation --
See http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26-He … imball.htm


3.  He courted and married the wives of other Church leaders, even his friends  -- even while those husbands were away on misisons.   See for example:
   -  "Mormon Polygamy: A History" - by LDS Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, pages 44, 48- 49n3.]
   -  "In Sacred Lonliness" by Todd Compton.



  SUCHELE:

I just can't comprehend this middle-of-the-road concept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who just happened to go out and have illicit sexual relationships whenever he wanted and moreover, taught people it was all okey-dokey. What the heck with that?




GAIA:

WEll, that's the efforts of some to *deal*  with some of these more troubling aspects of his history.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 08, 2008 - 12:32AM #35
splendid
Posts: 310

Gaia-j wrote:

GAIA:

Hi Splendid --

It was considered part of the entire principle known as "Celestial Marriage" , which was meant to sanctify the human soul (body and spirit) --
If you think a moment about the kind of self-possession and discipline, the lack of ego, the patience, understanding, wisdom, and other qualities that actually living this principle would involve and would likely build into the character of those who did practice it -- it becomes a little clearer what part it would have in sanctifying their souls *smile*.



Hi Gaia

Well I think it's a stretch but maybe, and I'm a bit skeptical of man made sanctification programs (I don't think God designs them either).  But I also see the brunt of this sanctification falling on th the shoulders of certain parties to the principle more than others.  How well would the sanctification go if the roles were reversed?  Because if it's only about "self-possession and discipline, the lack of ego, the patience, understanding, wisdom, and other qualities that actually living this principle would involve and would likely build into the character of those who did practice it"  it wouldn't matter if it was polyandry or polygyny right?  Since that's not the case I find it a stretch to agree to your list of benefits.    (although it would be a great "alternative history" theme):)

I have read references on the LDS boards to works written  by women who experienced polygyny, both for defense, and indictment of the principle.   But I've never seen references to anything written by men.   There is the Kimball cow line and BY not bothering with his wives names stuff, but stories of men and their experiences with polygyny don't seem to be on the radar?  Anything out there?

Thanks again.

Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 08, 2008 - 7:27AM #36
Ironhold
Posts: 11,668
I've mentioned this a few times before, but there is a family legend in regards to plural marraige.

I had an ancestor who was apparently on close terms with Brigham Young. One day Young ordered him to take a second wife, as there weren't enough worthy, eligible men in the valley and there were a number of single sisters without any husband to support them. He balked at the notion of taking a second wife, but his first wife convinced him: not only did Brigham Young personally make the request, but she could use the assistance in running her half of the homestead. My ancestor then went to a friend of his who had a daughter. As it turned out, the daughter had (ironically enough) spent so much time of late making wedding dresses for her friends that she herself hadn't even considered dating!

The ancestor would eventually take on a third wife, with the three wives getting along with each other and working in tandem to raise all of their children (for some time, each year found one of the three pregnant) and tend to the homestead.

It wouldn't be until his sudden death a few decades later that there would be any strife. My ancestor had been frequently called upon by Brigham Young to help establish some new settlements, which required moving every few years. After about twenty years of this, after my ancestor died his third wife made the decision that she was tired of moving; she and those children who weren't already adults would remain where they were, while the first two wives would make one final move.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 08, 2008 - 12:12PM #37
ProfitOfGod
Posts: 1,020
[QUOTE=Suchele;195776]I'm confused. Is there any LDS person here who actually believes Joseph Smith started polygamy because he was commanded to by God? It seems to me that the statement "by their fruits ye shall know them" has good application here. If the LDS religion is true, then it was founded by a prophet, who would have to be a good person, right? Fallible, I grant you, but not so fallible that he would wantonly go against such vital principles as chastity.

On the other hand, if it's not true, who cares? Joseph Smith could be the most well-intended person, or a perverse snake.

I just can't comprehend this middle-of-the-road concept that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God who just happened to go out and have illicit sexual relationships whenever he wanted and moreover, taught people it was all okey-dokey. What the heck with that?[/QUOTE]

God, I don't want to move this conversation towards the realm of debate, but I completely buy the idea that Joseph Smith could've been a 'well-intended person'. 

That's a great description, but true Mormons often consider my words blasphemous.
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 08, 2008 - 12:13PM #38
ProfitOfGod
Posts: 1,020
BTW, this is a great thread, so I'm not in any way attempting to derail it.

Thanks for your story, Iron - quality stuff! lol
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 2:42AM #39
Pochahantus
Posts: 134
[QUOTE=LDSGuy;181347]I know I am really sticking my neck out here as a brand new member of this forum and posting something as contraversial as Polygamy, but it is something that weighs heavy on my mind lately.
I was doing some research after Christmas on our early "LDS" leaders and I was quite surprised at all the information that I found on how splintered our faith became after Joseph Smith and how many Qorum of the Twelve left to start up their own "brand" of LDS faith due to their desire to continue Polygamy or as they put it "live the principle".  Being how I never lived in Utah for any significant amount of time until recently, I never realized just how "polarized" the views are here.  I lived in Southern California as an LDS for years and for the most part, people could care less there what your faith is as long as you keep it to yourself, whereas it is a little different living in the heartland for LDS.
I discovered not that long ago that we actually have a splinter of the LDS faith operating and flourishing right here in Layton, in Davis County!  I couldn't believe it!
My question to others is:  I read that their could be as much as 3% of the mainstream LDS members who still practive Polygamy, but secretly behind closed doors. I would like to know how accurate that number could be?  Does anybody feel that way as well?  If so, do you know of active mainstream LDS members who practice polygamy?  I would of course invite anybody who is in a plural marriage to step forward and provide some insight, but comments from an mainstream LDS member would be most welcome!

Thanks, Happy New Year to all!!

Kindest Regards,[/QUOTE]
ok Polygamy a very touchy subject. I dont know if the number you have their is correct or not, all I know is that it isnt allowed anymore and hasnt been since 1890. I know the FLDS and the spin offs of that orginisation do Practice Polygamy and that is why they were excommunicated from the "Original Church" and thus have created their own version of it. The regulations in the FLDS are quite extreeme in the since they are not allowed to watch TV,VCR, Play video Games or read a lot of Childrens books and many many more rules which the leader has set up. This sekt, spin off, church, or faith what ever you choose to call it. condones the marriage of young girls (14) to older men. The women are subjected to ridicule and abuse. What the leader says goes. Where as the RLDS or Community of Christ as they are now known are against Polygamy and that is why they broke off the mainline or Original one in 1830, they have one other thing which is different, both men and women there can be ordanined in the presthood. I personally think this is wrong, there were just certain callings God intended just for men as he had some just for women and nothing should change or interfere with that, otherwise the church loses its true meaning. As for Temples, yes they both have one. Community of Christ is located in Independence Missiouri along with their main headquarters.
the FLDS  main membership is now centered in the twin cities of Colorado City, AZ and Hildale, UT.  In 2004-MAY, the FLDS announced that a new base for the church will be established in Schleiser County, TX, about four miles northeast of Eldorado. It currently has 14 log structures, four large metal buildings, and a large stone temple.
To answer maybe the polygamy question:
There is an estimated 6,000 to 11,000 thousand members of the FLDS in the U.S. The group also has a single colony of about 1,000 members in Canada. Together, they form a significant percentage of the estimated 30,000 Mormon polygynists in Utah, and the estimated 60,000 in the U.S
Quick Reply
Cancel
7 years ago  ::  Jan 13, 2008 - 3:16PM #40
Gaia-j
Posts: 636
[QUOTE=Pochahantus;209997]

ok Polygamy a very touchy subject. I dont know if the number you have their is correct or not, all I know is that it isnt allowed anymore and hasnt been since 1890.


GAIA:

Well, again, that was the public story - but in reality, there were polygamous marraiges being performed in the Temples for nearly ten YEARS AFTER the 1890 Manifesto --
For more on this, please see:


[Mormon Polygamy: A History - by LDS Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner,

PLURAL MARRIAGES AFTER THE 1890 MANIFESTO:  www.ldshistory.net/pc/postman.htm -

Post-manifesto Mormon Polygamy:  www.lds-mormon.com/second_manifesto.shtml

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_Manifesto

rameumptom.blogspot.com/2004/05/lingering-legacy-of-post-manifesto.html

By Common Consent » The Lingering Legacy of Post-Manifesto Polygamy: www.bycommonconsent.com/2004/05/the-lin … -polygamy/

www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/7207/romney.htm

www.signaturebookslibrary.org/essays/mormonpolygamy.htm

www.mormonstories.org/top10toughissues/polygamy.html - 15k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this



POCH:

Where as the RLDS or Community of Christ as they are now known are against Polygamy and that is why they broke off the mainline or Original one in 1830,




GAIA:

Well actually, there were SEVERAL reasons why they split, that was only one of many.

Brigham Young and Emma Smith (Joseph Smith's widow) were known to not get along, and since Emma and her son had some legitimate claims upon leadership of the Church, there was even more reason for their antipathy.


POCH:

they have one other thing which is different, both men and women there can be ordanined in the presthood. I personally think this is wrong, there were just certain callings God intended just for men as he had some just for women and nothing should change or interfere with that, otherwise the church loses its true meaning.




GAIA:

Sorry -- Not sure what you mean there --

Are you saying that women should NOT become "Queens and Priestesses", as they are promised in LDS scripture, and  anointed in the (LDS)  Temples?


Blessings --
~Gaia

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 8  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook