I'm having some issues with Joseph Smith

[Elphaba]

The Lord instructs him about Polygamy. He tells a few people about it.. those that are close.. and gets the same reaction from them.. that he felt. How could this be? He was in love with Emma. That was the last thing on Earth that he wanted to do... was to hurt her. But he had a commandment to follow. When he told Brigham Young.. Brigham had said that he was watching a funeral procession.. and envied the man who was dead that he did not have to deal with this new commandment of plural marriage.

Because of the persecution.. Joseph knew he could not announce this commandment to everyone. It was only told to a few... And if accosted by someone concerning it.. he would deny it. How many times did Joseph run and hide for his life? So rather than admit to polygamy.. and be killed for it... he often told others that we did not practice it.

Concerning women that were all ready married: Joseph felt he had the authority to "loose" those marriages here on earth when the woman no longer wanted to be married to her husband. In many cases... he sealed himself to women.. to bind his family with theirs. i.e. Sister Kimball who was 14. Her father was an Apostle.. and by sealing himself to this child.. it bound the Kimball’s' and the Smiths' together. No he did not consummate the marriage.

. . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now see, that was a first-rate, interesting and concise treatment of the Church's history of polygamy. It sounds like Bushman's explanation from Rough Stone Rolling, which was an eye-opener for me. It literally changed the way I looked at polygamy during the Nauvoo period.

I would disagree with you on a few minor points, and I would strongly disagree it has anything to do with the Reorganized Church.

Just an aside, when the Church's practice in the Utah territory became a federal issue, I insist the federal government was wrong. Polygamy WAS a religious practice, and the government violated the Church's First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

So here is the "anti-Mormon" not only telling you did a great job, especially with the limitations of a message board, but also agreeing with you on the major points.

There doesn't have to be rancor between people who disagree on some things, but agree on others. There was nothing "anti-Mormon" in my post you responded to. Your effort to invalidate my comments by using the thought-stopping cliché' "anti-Mormon" only precludes you from hearing interesting perspectives. And of course, we are never going to agree with everything. And there is nothing wrong with that.

These disagreements are part of every aspect of life, and trying to shove people into pigeonholes they don't fit in is never going to shorten the divide. Similarly, insinuating I am an anti-Mormon is a thought-stopping cliché, as I am not, nor have I ever been one.

Not everyone who is not a member, and who is vocal on a message board, is an anti-Mormon. And not every book containing information about the Church is anti-Mormon.

Again, I suggest you look at the books listed in my profile. There are probably a number of them you'd enjoy.

Elphaba

[MrNirom]

Is your question obtuse for a reason? I cannot edit Maureen's posts.

I do not want to get into an argument over this.. but lying about it is not doing anyone any good.

In Post #106 from Maureen.. she posted:

Originally Posted by anas13

Yes, Joeseph Smith had more than one wife. Did he have thirty wives that were already married to other men, no. Did he marry woman who weren't old enough to be woman, no. You have to believe that in those days polygamy wasn't illegal, and it was normal for a man to have more than one wife, but woman couldn't have more than one husband. Joseph was a righteous to his wives and they weren't fourteen years old, they weren't married to other men, and I'm sure he didn't have thirty.

If Joseph Smith had broken the rules that Heavenly Father set, he wouldn't have recieved those wonderful revelations that are the outline of our church. This mormon basher doesn't want you to walk with the light. And the Deciever's fallen angels feel that your confused and disheartened heart and they'll keep whispering in your ears to believe in these things.

There are many people who want to decieve us from our teachings. They want us to let go of the Iron Rod because they already have. I must caution you to stay off those anti-mormon websites, and take comfort in our Heavenly Father, that he'll make these things right in the end. For in the end all things shall be revealed to us.

I am curious if anas13 has read through this thread and if she still feels the same way. If you're interested in Mormon Polygamy history this link gives you a snippet of that history:

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org...onpolygamy.htm

M.

Then in Post #109 you posted:

Originally Posted by Maureen

I am curious if anas13 has read through this thread and if she still feels the same way. If you're interested in Mormon Polygamy history this link gives you a snippet of that history:

Do you need a history of Mormon polygamy?

M.

Hi Maureen,

Anas13's post is, to put it bluntly, full of errors about Joseph's polygamy that are sometimes given in Church venues with little discussion. I know my mother believed the same as Anas.

However, I do think subsequent posters have corrected most of the errors. Unfortunately, it is such a complicated topic it's very hard to get an accurate and comprehensive picture. I believe I've read most of the scholarly and historical treatments, but still feel there is much more to learn.

I also second your link as a wonderful source for accurate information about the subject.

Elphaba

You changed the post. What read http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org...onpolygamy.htm

and changed to: Do you need a history of Mormon polygamy? that had the above URL attached to it.

I just wanted to know why? To me it looked as if you wanted to hide the fact that the URL was identifiable as a signaturebook URL.. and by changing it to Do you need a history of Mormon polygamy.. you did in fact hide the URL.

So.. here we are. I already posted #119 as to what I heard about Signature Books. For you to say that Signature Book is the source to go to for the "Truth" because our history is rich, dark, horrific, heartbreaking, and ultimate astonishing and inspiring.. as if the Church.. or those who defend it.. are not doing a good enough job therefore we need a place to go.. like Signature Books to get the truth.. the whole truth.

I am not calling you an anti Mormon.. nor am I inferring to it. As I stated.. I was just wondering WHY? you changed the post as you did?

[rameumptom]

I think Joseph could state that he was only married to one woman for this one reason: Joseph's polygamy was specifically to establish a dynastic family. Polygamy changed under Brigham Young, as sealings have changed for us today from what they were in Joseph's day.

In Joseph's day, he was sealed to many women and men, not for sexual purposes, but to increase his eternal family line. Even after his death, many young women would seal themselves to him, in order to have a guaranteed celestial marriage, and then marry another man for time.

This practice was stopped I believe after Brigham Young's death, as many also were sealed to him after his death.

Only in the last century has the sealing focused more on biological family lines, rather than spiritual adoption family lines.

[Elphaba]

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org...onpolygamy.htm

Just wondering if you changed the URL in Maureen's post to read "Do you need a history of Mormon polygamy?".. for a reason?

I know that Signature Books is a highly recognized Publisher of Anti Mormon Literature and Books.

I guess if one wants the truth about the Mormons... the ANTI MORMON Publisher will do the trick quite nicely. :)

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org...onpolygamy.htm

Edited July 9, 2008 by Elphaba
Trying to figure out what happened.

[VisionOfLehi]

Married, or sealed?

[MrNirom]

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org...onpolygamy.htm

I Wish To Apologize To Elphaba For The Comment I Made About Her Lying.

It Has Been Explained To Me That It Is Possible For Someone To Hit The Quote Button And A Url That Was In The Original Post Can Sometimes Just Create A New Phrase On Its Own Accord And Attach That Url To The Phrase.

So Again.. I Am Very Sorry Elphaba For Calling You A Liar.

Mrnirom

[Elphaba]

I do not want to get into an argument over this..

Then you should have been more careful before jumping to a conclusion.

but lying about it is not doing anyone any good.

No, it isn't, and I would never do such a thing.

. . . . you did in fact hide the URL.

No, I did not.

For you to say that Signature Book is the source to go to for the "Truth"

I did not say that.

because our history is rich, dark, horrific, heartbreaking, and ultimate astonishing and inspiring..

Do you disagree with my description?

as if the Church.. or those who defend it.. are not doing a good enough job therefore we need a place to go.. like Signature Books to get the truth.. the whole truth.

I did not say that.

I am not calling you an anti Mormon.

Thank you.

nor am I inferring to it.

Nor could you have. I inferred it, apparently wrongly, and I am glad to know that.

As I stated.. I was just wondering WHY? you changed the post as you did?

I did not change the post, and wonder why you were so quick to accuse me of such.

To understand what happened, please read this post.

Hopefully you'll reign yourself the next time you feel inclined to call anyone a "liar." It's not a benign accusation.

Elphaba

[VisionOfLehi]

Okay, problem solved! Moving on!

[skalenfehl]

It sounds to me like a misunderstanding resulting from this quoted link which changed the URL. I'm glad it's worked out. :)

[MrNirom]

It sounds to me like a misunderstanding resulting from this quoted link which changed the URL. I'm glad it's worked out. :)

Yes.. I am happy to know this as well.

It is weird that they would have it pull the Title of the Web Page rather than the URL. And it is true under Miscellaneous Options.. there is a box.. when Checked.. It will Automatically retrieve the Title from the Web Page rather than displaying the actual link. Had I not gone to the actual web site and looked at the HTML code.. and saw what the Title of the web page was.. I would not have believed it. So even the explanation I got was not completely accurate. It was explained it would just create a phrase on it own. It does not.

So all is good.

[FayetteIA]

I am curious also..what is the difference how many wives Joseph Smith had? The Lord instituted polygamy for a reason during those times, just as He later instituted the United Order. They were being obedient to the commandment. Our lives bombarded by media, could it be that you have allowed popular/worldly concepts of Polygamy to infiltrate your mind? Having been through the Temple, you also should have a broader understanding of plural marriage. If you study church history (my husband is a big church history buff) you will find plural marriage was a difficult challenge. Not everyone participated. Plural marriage is recorded throughout the scriptures, it is not a new concept. At the risk of being unpopular here, I think your issues with it are more complex than the fact: For a time, The Lord commanded it.

I truly do not know how I would accept plural marriage if/when it was instituted again. I would like to believe I would not allow it to be a stumbling block to my progression. My husband cannot imagine having another "Me" LOL

Hope I helped here..sometimes I am just to outspoken...I don't mean to offend, hope I didn't

Joni

[MrNirom]

I am curious also..what is the difference how many wives Joseph Smith had?

For some.. it does seem to matter. Why? Well we could guess. Our critics would have us believe it was only because of sex. The lustfulness of this evil man.

With some of the critical material that is out there.. the critics have stated that the Mormons believe in men who become Gods with endless wives having endless sex to populate their endless worlds. They make it sound very dirty and unrighteous.

So when Mormons talk about polygamy.. and I should capitalize the word WHEN.. it is kinda understood that one or two.. maybe three would be acceptable. Anything more becomes outrageous! and then falls into the category of what? crazy? or as some will put it.. sinful, greedy, etc. So when they find out that Joseph had 33 or 34.. (depending on what the definition of "wife" and "marriage" is) it can be overwhelming to some who had no idea.

I have heard women tell their husbands that if they were to die.. she hopes he won't marry again. So the idea.. to the majority of LDS women.. of polygamy.. is not too well received. It really wasn't back then.. and it wouldn't be now.

Just the fact that we still practice polygamy on a spiritual level upsets many!

[prisonchaplain]

The whole polygamy issue, how many wives Joseph Smith had, how young they were, what their marriage really meant, etc., is a significant area for critics of your church, who believe there is much that most non-LDS would find questionable. The area may also cause investigators to think twice. Finally, those members who are inactive, perhaps disgruntled, may find here justifications for leaving. It's doubtful that active, faithful, convinced members would find anything in this history to topple their faith.

[VisionOfLehi]

As an investigator, I don't really remember caring,

A brief mention of Abraham and whoever else, and all was good in my book.

I'm so unusual.

[MrNirom]

The whole polygamy issue, how many wives Joseph Smith had, how young they were, what their marriage really meant, etc., is a significant area for critics of your church, who believe there is much that most non-LDS would find questionable. The area may also cause investigators to think twice. Finally, those members who are inactive, perhaps disgruntled, may find here justifications for leaving. It's doubtful that active, faithful, convinced members would find anything in this history to topple their faith.

Disgruntled members will always find a way out.. Joseph Smith is not the only reason.

Critics can find anything wrong with any church.

Being of another religion, I think everyone finds other churches questionable. That is why they question even their own.

I don't think any church out there recites even 50% of their history to any convert. Not enough time. And the Mormon church has less time in HISTORY than any of them.

I think any active, faithful, CONVINCED member of any church would not find anything in their history to topple their faith. Just look at the members of the largest Christian Church in the world who has more history under their belts than anyone. Members aren't exactly running away in droves!

Some critics would call that a big.. bad.. "brainwashing".

Edited July 12, 2008 by MrNirom

[rameumptom]

The whole polygamy issue, how many wives Joseph Smith had, how young they were, what their marriage really meant, etc., is a significant area for critics of your church, who believe there is much that most non-LDS would find questionable. The area may also cause investigators to think twice. Finally, those members who are inactive, perhaps disgruntled, may find here justifications for leaving. It's doubtful that active, faithful, convinced members would find anything in this history to topple their faith.

Which is an okay consideration. But may I ask why people don't do the same with other churches? Why don't Catholics get concerned over historical issues like 3 popes at one time excommunicating each other, or indulgences, or the Inquisition? Or why don't Calvinists concern themselves with the fact that John Calvin burned heretics at the stake?

Then, why do some people still follow lecherers like Jimmy Swaggert, when his "history" is very recent?

Why is it okay to try and destroy the LDS church with history that is over a century old, when other churches have done even worse? Why aren't they leaving those churches in droves, and setting up anti-sites against those religions for their past crimes?

Why is it that we get looked at under a microscope, but others do not? That is the part I do not understand.

[Elphaba]

I truly do not know how I would accept plural marriage if/when it was instituted again. I would like to believe I would not allow it to be a stumbling block to my progression.

I've written about this before, but your comments are such I'd like to repeat myself.

I've read a significant number of journals from the Pioneer period in the mid to late 19th Century, where polygamy was part of the Church's identity. In those journals where the writer discussed polygamy, to a one they all said it was a commandment of God, and therefore they did, or would, live "the principle."

I suspect, if the prophet said he had had a revelation that reinstated "Celestial Marriage," or polygamy, today, you'd be surprised at how many people would do so, with light or heavy hearts, but with the sure knowledge that God had commanded it.

I except there will soon be polygamists testing the law prohibiting polygamy, and I think they will win. I think the Lawrence v. Texas case makes it impossible not to rule in favor of the polygamists. In fact, I think this not only a privacy issue, but a First Amendment issue with regards to separation of church and state.

Another issue I've commented on is, in the journals I've read, how to tell if the women in polygamous marriages felt affection for her sisterwives,

Usually, it became obvious through journal entries of family get-togethers. If the women enjoyed the outing, and described her sister-wives in positive words, there was genuine affection for each other.

However, if a wife did not enjoy the outing, and complained about a sister wife in her journal, chances were the women were not at all happy in the marriage.

Of course, this is not a perfect way to determine how the wives felt; I'm positive there are many exceptions. But as I read the journals written by women in polygamous marriages, I started to the pattern I've described above. It was fascinating.

I've rambled on a bit, but I'm trying to express my belief that we'd probably be surprised at how many members would enter into polygamous marriages if, say, President Holland said he had received a revelation about it, and so reinstated the practice. This would be especially true for those who were called by the First presidency to do so.

By the way, there are two books I recommend that discuss the Church's history with polygamy.

"Mormon Polygamy: A History" by Richard Van Wagoner

"Mormon Mother" by Annie Clark Tanner

Ms. Tanner's book is especially important as it is her first-hand account of living in a polygamous marriage, but, as was often the case, while husbands were in jail for practicing polygamy, wives often had to use the "underground railroad" to get away so they would not have to testify against the husbands.

Elphaba

[sylphr]

If your testimony is based on Joseph being a perfect man, then your testimony is built on sand. Take comfort that the Lord calls fallible people. Examine your own pure motives. Examine that you can't be judged for something when you are in ignorance or are new to it. It matters not all these gory details, they will work themselves out. What we know to be true should not be based on people's lack of sinning. The Lord chastises the leaders throughout the scriptures, including the Prophet and their families and loved ones. We know that gospel living yields joy and peace, we know that the Lord governs us and has poured out miracles abundantly as we seek to build up His kingdom. If you have a testimony of the restored gospel, the plain and simple doctrines, all this other stuff is of little consequence. None of the new members were perfect in living the new commandments, there was some transitioning to take place. Further, Christ suffered for the sins of Joseph Smith and you & I. The higher you soar sometimes the lowere you've descended. These things might even be to try our faith. But look at the fruit, the labor of love, how we are interconnected and unified by this restored gospel. What is the difference between a man of God and a man of belial is that one of those wretched men has repented and one has not.

[FayetteIA]

I disagree: Polygamy is NOT the issue and we have answered the questions many times throughout history.

Are today's members of the Catholic church call upon to answer for the Inquisition? No they are not.

TV Evangelist are only called to account when the IRS gets involved.

I could go on and on here. The bottom line is "Was Joseph Smith a Prophet"? Did the events he recounted in the Sacred Grove happen? Did the witnesses to the Golden Plates tell the truth? Those are the only important things, because the rest is contingent on those events. AND..for whatever reason would thousands of people alter their lives, traipse across frozen ground for a religion..if they did not hold it true? When you read the "Signature" books I would advise you to also read the "History of the Church" it is contained in several volumes, it would be a good companion to say "Amazon" books

For me..it doesn't matter if Say President Kimball wore white shoes every where, it doesn't matter which Prophet was in place when a certain revelation was disclosed. There have been many, many more than Polygamy. I have pioneer ancestors in my family who were body guards to 3 of the earlier Prophets...that may not fit neatly into a religious peoples society either. Not when viewed by our understanding of bodyguards..

For Me: Joseph was a Prophet, the events he related to the world happened as he said. If there are inaccuracies, it is only because, just like we can make a typo, they were not perfect men and women. The basics..for me..are true. The polygamy, while part of our history, it is also part of the Old testament history, was instituted by the Lord at a time..when the Lord felt it was needed. Very simple.

Joni