Not another polygamy thread! (sigh)

[rameumptom]

It isn't anymore far fetched than a donkey speaking and attempting to protect Balaam from being slain by an angel with a sword. Why would God care if Balaam cursed Israel? Would it have mattered? Would it have caused Israel to be destroyed? Seems rather silly to me that we even have the story in the Bible. If God's will can be influenced that much by one non-Israelite, so that God has to send an angel with a sword, then he isn't a very powerful God.

Or am I overlooking something?

You have a problem with plural marriage. We get that. But polygamy was and is accepted in many cultures for thousands of years. Had we been raised in such an environment, perhaps it would not be so terrible to us today.

It is too easy to look back on history and judge from our "enlightened" viewpoint. 200 years ago, it was common in the American west to marry at 14 years of age, and sometimes younger. I've done genealogical research in the Kentucky region for the 19th century, and you'd be surprised at how young some married. And that many of the family trees do not branch. Yet it was accepted and considered normal. Today, we wouldn't consider doing that, as our standards and world view have changed.

What they did isn't wrong, unless we try to impose upon peoples of the past our set of values.

[mike_uk]

It isn't anymore far fetched than a donkey speaking and attempting to protect Balaam from being slain by an angel with a sword. Why would God care if Balaam cursed Israel? Would it have mattered? Would it have caused Israel to be destroyed? Seems rather silly to me that we even have the story in the Bible. If God's will can be influenced that much by one non-Israelite, so that God has to send an angel with a sword, then he isn't a very powerful God.

Or am I overlooking something?

You have a problem with plural marriage. We get that. But polygamy was and is accepted in many cultures for thousands of years. Had we been raised in such an environment, perhaps it would not be so terrible to us today.

It is too easy to look back on history and judge from our "enlightened" viewpoint. 200 years ago, it was common in the American west to marry at 14 years of age, and sometimes younger. I've done genealogical research in the Kentucky region for the 19th century, and you'd be surprised at how young some married. And that many of the family trees do not branch. Yet it was accepted and considered normal. Today, we wouldn't consider doing that, as our standards and world view have changed.

What they did isn't wrong, unless we try to impose upon peoples of the past our set of values.

You are right, it isnt any more far fetched than those incidents and they are probably myth also. You arent overlooking anything at all. I have always struggled with those stories. Especially the biggies like world flood, noah etc.

I have heard it to be common to marry 14 year olds back then many times but my own none biased research tells a different story indeed. Yes it happened but not frequently. The vast majority of women back then married around 20. But, even if it was the norm, WHY was there a need to marry a child? Show me proof that it was acceptable and of the norm please.

I think what they did was wrong and has effected us becasue of it we have the likes of Warren Jeffs. I saw a picture of him with a child draped around his neck kissing. Appaling. Yea too right it bothers me.

Its probably beneficial for us all for me to move on from this topic becasue its plain that the whole thing disgusts me and the more we discuss it the more my anger grows. On to nice topics.

Edited August 13, 2008 by mike_uk

[bytor2112]

For whatever it is worth....the legal age of consent in most states is 16. However, some states like Hawaii, Idaho and South Carolina the age is 14 and in Colorado, Virginia and Connectict it is 15.

[Guest ceeboo]

For whatever it is worth....the legal age of consent in most states is 16. However, some states like Hawaii, Idaho and South Carolina the age is 14 and in Colorado, Virginia and Connectict it is 15.

Hi bytor,

HMMMMMMMM, OK, that clears it up ??

God bless,

Carl

[rameumptom]

All this shows is our views on marriage age have changed, just as our views on many issues have changed over the centuries. We're also against slavery, for women's rights, against arranged marriages, against robber barons, etc.

Warren Jeffs' works today fly in the face of modern laws. Few on the frontier would have questioned a 14 year old being married. And while politics of the late 19th century evolved against polygamy, it still flies in the face of reality, where it was illegal to marry more than one woman, but it was okay to live or sleep with more than one woman. Mike, do you consider people that just sleep around of a higher moral authority than those who practiced polygamy? If so, how?

Why is it that we are so vehemently aghast at polygamy, but not about free sex movements? Why is it that the only motivating factor for reducing the number of sex partners is to avoid STDs? Where is the moral voice in that?

Given the choice, I'd prefer plural marriages, where women have legal rights, than the currently acceptable immorality that gives no right nor protection to anyone.

[bytor2112]

Hi bytor,

HMMMMMMMM, OK, that clears it up ??

God bless,

Carl

Hi Ceeboo,

There is nothing to clear up for me. Plural marriage was and will be again a sacred and holy practice ordained by the Father. Perhaps not in this life, but in the eternities. As for the age of consent post.....it was just FYI.

[mike_uk]

All this shows is our views on marriage age have changed, just as our views on many issues have changed over the centuries. We're also against slavery, for women's rights, against arranged marriages, against robber barons, etc.

Warren Jeffs' works today fly in the face of modern laws. Few on the frontier would have questioned a 14 year old being married. And while politics of the late 19th century evolved against polygamy, it still flies in the face of reality, where it was illegal to marry more than one woman, but it was okay to live or sleep with more than one woman. Mike, do you consider people that just sleep around of a higher moral authority than those who practiced polygamy? If so, how?

Why is it that we are so vehemently aghast at polygamy, but not about free sex movements? Why is it that the only motivating factor for reducing the number of sex partners is to avoid STDs? Where is the moral voice in that?

Given the choice, I'd prefer plural marriages, where women have legal rights, than the currently acceptable immorality that gives no right nor protection to anyone.

Ram, I understand your viewpoint.

My problems are the inclusion of children, Polyandry, angel stories, doing it behind Emma's back etc. If he was commanded of God, Emma should have been told immediately. Maybe God if he was indeed kind and loving could have given her a revelation or popped down for a visit to inform as to what was about to happen. That poor woman.

Edited August 13, 2008 by mike_uk

[mike_uk]

Hi Ceeboo,

There is nothing to clear up for me. Plural marriage was and will be again a sacred and holy practice ordained by the Father. Perhaps not in this life, but in the eternities. As for the age of consent post.....it was just FYI.

That makes me very uncomfortable and its been hard for me to swallow for years. I just tried to shelve that principal. Id rather not spend my eternities with a God who would force me into this practise. No thanks.

[rameumptom]

Mike,

While I appreciate your struggle with this, once again, it all comes down to whether God commanded Joseph. Why would Joseph put himself through so much heck otherwise? He could have made his life very easy, by simply turning the religion into another Protestant religion. But as he stated, he knew God had talked with him.

Why did God not warn the peoples that Moses annihilated? Couldn't God have had Moses send an emmissary to them, allow them a chance to repent or move away?

It isn't an issue of what WE view as right or wrong, but whether God commanded it.

[Guest ceeboo]

Hi Ceeboo,

There is nothing to clear up for me. Plural marriage was and will be again a sacred and holy practice ordained by the Father. Perhaps not in this life, but in the eternities. As for the age of consent post.....it was just FYI.

Hi again bytor,

There is and never was anything to clear up for me either. On the contrary, If I were an LDS member it would ( or should ) be a complete non issue. ( Prophet JS was Commanded this and END OF STORY ). Thus my confusion.

I would respectfully disagree with your opinion of " will again be a sacred practice "

My comment as to the current US age of consent post was due to my opinion that it has nothing at all to do with the " historical " actions of your founders and furthermore when you look at " current age of consent in US states by law ' it has absolutly nothing to equate with the " prophetic " claims of your first prophet who's claim that it was commanded by God to implement.

Peace,

Carl

[mike_uk]

Mike,

While I appreciate your struggle with this, once again, it all comes down to whether God commanded Joseph. Why would Joseph put himself through so much heck otherwise? He could have made his life very easy, by simply turning the religion into another Protestant religion. But as he stated, he knew God had talked with him.

Why did God not warn the peoples that Moses annihilated? Couldn't God have had Moses send an emmissary to them, allow them a chance to repent or move away?

It isn't an issue of what WE view as right or wrong, but whether God commanded it.

Yes Ram I agree, God either coimmanded it or he didnt. Also Ram, thanks for trying to understand, its appreciated.

Ive asked myself why he went through all he did many times in my struggles. Why would he? Was he so totally dillusional that he convinced himself he was who he was? It's not unheard of.

I agree if God commanded it then I will shut up. However, I believe with my whole heart in this instnace he did not. I believe JS was caught in a situation he would rather have not been and conjured up this story about the angel. His many followers oviously believed him and would do anything he said. He used this story of death by sword to win these women over. Thats my theory.

Ahhhhh I hate this. God is supposed to be all knowing, totally loving, kind etc yet he would command someone to do all these things or face death? Wow, real love shown there. An all knowing God would have known that many years later this practise would cause massive problems and spawn idiots like Warren Jeffs. Its not right and sorry I will never change my mind on this.

[guitarwizard]

Wow, real love shown there. An all knowing God would have known that many years later this practise would cause massive problems and spawn idiots like Warren Jeffs. Its not right and sorry I will never change my mind on this.

It isn't unheard of. You know the plan of salvation: We as God's children come down here, sin and the like, and few will be welcomed back. How heartbreaking is that for God? He loses his children, He has to watch His Beloved Son suffer the sins of the world, be despised, spit upon and suffer a theif's death. On top of that, it is because of his plan that we have agency. That agency is the reason for the holocaust, all wars, everything evil on this earth. It could of all been prevented, but God is God and has infinite wisdom, and knew that there was an importance to His plan.

Basically, God knew what he was doing with the polygamy thing. If you believe JS is a prophet, you would have to concede that him saying an angel visited him is truth, because if it is a lie, then that makes him a charlatan and a false prophet. But, I know of a surety that JS was a prophet, and that those statements made were true. He was truly visited by an angel. And I also know of the truth of the Gospel, and it is all by the spirit that i know these things.

[bytor2112]

That makes me very uncomfortable and its been hard for me to swallow for years. I just tried to shelve that principal. Id rather not spend my eternities with a God who would force me into this practise. No thanks.

Mike.....I completely understand. I believe it and am comfortable with it because the Holy Spirit has born witness to me that it is from God. It is my personal opinion, that God will not force anything upon us. We will have to grow and progress in order to enter in to this higher order of things. When will that be? Sometime in the eternities when I am a far different being than I am in this fallen state. It won't be about sex or lust, but about a pure and holy and sacred love that is beyond my understanding ...today.

[bytor2112]

Hi again bytor,

There is and never was anything to clear up for me either. On the contrary, If I were an LDS member it would ( or should ) be a complete non issue. ( Prophet JS was Commanded this and END OF STORY ). Thus my confusion.

I would respectfully disagree with your opinion of " will again be a sacred practice "

My comment as to the current US age of consent post was due to my opinion that it has nothing at all to do with the " historical " actions of your founders and furthermore when you look at " current age of consent in US states by law ' it has absolutly nothing to equate with the " prophetic " claims of your first prophet who's claim that it was commanded by God to implement.

Peace,

Carl

No....I was just suggesting that the age thing, though creepy, would still be legal in some states.

In the LDS faith, plural marriage will indeed be a practice in the eternal worlds. If my wife were to predecease me, I could remarry and be sealed for time and eternity to another woman and still be with my first wife in the Eternal worlds, just as those who openly practiced plural marriage and had their marriages sealed in the Temple.

With regard to the whole issue, I would just say to quote a favorite Apostle of mine..." the things of God can only be understood by the power of the Holy Spirit." I know that these things are true because the Spirit has taught me that it is so and has bore witness to my spirit that it is indeed from our Heavenly Father.

[HiJolly]

Ram, I understand your viewpoint.

My problems are the inclusion of children, Polyandry, angel stories, doing it behind Emma's back etc. If he was commanded of God, Emma should have been told immediately. Maybe God if he was indeed kind and loving could have given her a revelation or popped down for a visit to inform as to what was about to happen. That poor woman.

I find the above bolded statement quite curious. How do you know Joseph did not tell her immediately? Knowing Emma (!), there is not a chance that if he DID tell her, she would've written it down, or told anyone. So, we would have ZERO evidence of it today.

Perhaps his acting in secrecy was a result of her own initial response to what he had told her. That is quite likely, from my reading of In Sacred Loneliness and Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith. He had to act, as it was a commandment-- just as Abraham had to act.

I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

I have to agree with Ram's comments to you also -- it seems you are inapropriately forcing your own 20th and 21 century ideas, mores and standards on people who had a totally different set of ideas, mores and standards. Bad idea.

HiJolly

[mike_uk]

I find the above bolded statement quite curious. How do you know Joseph did not tell her immediately? Knowing Emma (!), there is not a chance that if he DID tell her, she would've written it down, or told anyone. So, we would have ZERO evidence of it today.

Perhaps his acting in secrecy was a result of her own initial response to what he had told her. That is quite likely, from my reading of In Sacred Loneliness and Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith. He had to act, as it was a commandment-- just as Abraham had to act.

I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

I have to agree with Ram's comments to you also -- it seems you are inapropriately forcing your own 20th and 21 century ideas, mores and standards on people who had a totally different set of ideas, mores and standards. Bad idea.

HiJolly

I can pretty much guarantee Emma knew nothing about many of these women.

On August 18, 1842 Joseph wrote a letter to his plural wife, Elizabeth Ann, who was 17, and her parents.

"I take this opportunity to communicate, some of my feelings, privetely, at this time, which I want you three eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us. It would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied to love me, now is the time to afford me succour....The nights are very pleasand, indeed, all three of you can come and see me in the fore part of the night, let brother whitney come a little a head and knock at the south east corner of the house, at the window; it is next to the cornfield; I have a room entirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with the most perfect safety. The only thing to be careful of, is to find out when Emma comes, then you can not be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty..... ..I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont, dont fail to come to night."

Clearly, Emma was not aware of his marriage to Sarah Ann.

Joseph married seventeen year (why only younger women?) old Lucy Walker on May 1st, the day before Emma arrived on the Maid of Iowa. She later said about her marriage:

"Emma Smith was not present and she did not consent to the marriage; she did not know any thing about it at all."

Poor Emma really had a hard time of the whole Polygamy thing. A young woman from Carthage reported:

My sister went into the hotel parlor....to await the call to breakfast. Ten or twelve young women were assembled here, laughing and talking. Mrs. Emma Smith presently joined them,a nd recognizing my sister, whom she had met before, entered into conversation with her. Upon my sister asking, "Mrs. Smith, where does your church get this doctrine of spiritual wives?" her face flushed scarlet, and her eyes blazed as she replied, "Straight from hell, madam."

Inapropriate in your view not mine HiJolly.

Edited August 14, 2008 by mike_uk

[funkymonkey]

In the LDS faith, plural marriage will indeed be a practice in the eternal worlds.

Does someone have the reference to this? I apparently missed this part of Sunday school...was probably sleeping through it.

[Vort]

I have to agree with Ram's comments to you also -- it seems you are inapropriately forcing your own 20th and 21 century ideas, mores and standards on people who had a totally different set of ideas, mores and standards. Bad idea.

Inapropriate in your view not mine HiJolly.

So you think it's appropriate to judge the actions of historical figures by modern mores rather than by contemporary ideas?

[funkymonkey]

it seems you are inapropriately forcing your own 20th and 21 century ideas, mores and standards on people who had a totally different set of ideas, mores and standards. Bad idea.

HiJolly

Sorry to but in here but...

I don't think he's "innapropriately forcing" anything. He is voicing his concerns in a very honest way...concerns that a lot of people have.

Vort, I judge the actions of historical figures "by modern mores" all the time... Hitler, Stalin, King Henry the 8th, etc.

[mike_uk]

So you think it's appropriate to judge the actions of historical figures by modern mores rather than by contemporary ideas?

Funky beat me to it and I was going to say the same thing.

But yes its my opinion and one I share with many thousands of individuals both member and none member. This is a discussion board so im discussing.

[WANDERER]

If you believe in revealed truths....then there's probably a lot more still to come that we can't yet handle. Yes it is appropriate to judge the actions of historical figures by modern mores...but with compassion...discern might be a better word.

Edited August 13, 2008 by WANDERER

[Vort]

Vort, I judge the actions of historical figures "by modern mores" all the time... Hitler, Stalin, King Henry the 8th, etc.

Are you saying you believe these men were justified by the mores of their own time?

[Vort]

But yes its my opinion and one I share with many thousands of individuals both member and none member. This is a discussion board so im discussing.

Why do people keep saying this? Isn't it obvious? Or is there someone that keeps claiming this isn't a discussion board?

[funkymonkey]

I like what wanderer said. :)

By the tone of some of the messages, it sometimes feels more like an arguement board...or a debate board...may the most articulately argumentative person win!

[mike_uk]

Why do people keep saying this? Isn't it obvious? Or is there someone that keeps claiming this isn't a discussion board?

Keep saying this? Wild exageration from you there Vort. Its the 1st time I have ever said it and a rather pontless reply from you tbh.

Edited August 13, 2008 by mike_uk