Some Russian Leaders Propose Legalizing Polygamy.

[Fiannan]

First you start with a thread about Russia and polygamy, then someone starts a cat fight over an alleged cat fight, then ya try to spice it up with some S & M thrown in to make the cat fight interesting, and then people can't let go of the cat fight thing.

Question, after the alleged incident did Emma and the other gal kiss and make out, I mean up?

Sorry, again I could not resist.

[Sugarbay]

No kidding, Finnian. B)

[Outshined]

Someone please provide documentation one way or the other or stop speaking badly of Sister Smith. Does it really matter what happened anyway. Just carcass to feed on. Tsk.

There is no documentation, of course; it is just a legend. The fact that it maligns Emma was the problem all along.

Hopefully it ends here.

If the story of Emma kicking Eliza down the stairs is false, provide official Church documentation.

I agree with you fully. I am very much looking forward to the offical documentation from the church that says the story is true. This cuts both ways. If one side needs proof so does the other. Aristotle has faith in what he/she heard from the pulpuit, and the rest have faith in what they have heard and read to the contrary. If one requests offical proof, they must at the same time provide their proof. The repeating of the story by people who may or not have been there leaves room for doubt. I see this really going no where, but ending best if you agree to disagree.

Exactly.

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[Guest Syble]

This thread illustrates how little we really know about anything that has happened in the past among people who are now dead and cannot speak for themselves.

The important thing is, we learn to not follow bad examples, and allow the Spirit to guide us in all circumstances we find ourselves in during our own lives.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

Official Church documentation is required to substantiate that the story "Sister McConkie" retold about Emma Smith from the Church pulpit at a stake Relief Society meeting is false and that "Sister McConkie" is guilty of "spreading rumors and gossip" in the LDS Church.

- Mrs. A

Says who? You? There is no rule of any kind here or in the LDS Church, so be aware that you are speaking for yourself alone on that.

Outshined perhaps you are unaware of the little known Wilhem Ritter von Wymetal Rule better known that the Reciprocal Rule of Inverse Idiocy. The rule stipulates that all antiMormon allegations against Emma Smith must be considered gospel if 1: the rumors are repeated in Relief Society and 2: gossiped about on the internet.

By the way, my source may not be as credible as Ari's.

Her source: an old memory of what an uncertain person may have once said in a meeting.

My sources are:

-Joseph Smith, the Prophet, His Family and Friends by the antiMormon Wilhem Ritter von Wymetal, a correspondant for the Berlinger Tabeblatt, who started the rumor 40 years after the alledged incident.

-Joseph Smith Rough Rolling Stone, Richard Bushman - the Gouvenor Morris Professor of History, Columbia University and Stake Patriarch. (p. 654 note 33)

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[Snow]

Well I certainly agree that you should stop promoting antiMormon rumor mongering and false gossip, but I see no problem in citing the nefarious origin of the falsehoods and laying them to rest by printing the truth instead.

I'm kind of a stickler for that - truth.

[Outshined]

Thanks for providing those sources Snow. Clears things up quite nicely. B)

[Fiannan]

Outshined perhaps you are unaware of the little known Wilhem Ritter von Wymetal Rule better known that the Reciprocal Rule of Inverse Idiocy. The rule stipulates that all antiMormon allegations against Emma Smith must be considered gospel if 1: the rumors are repeated in Relief Society and 2: gossiped about on the internet.

By the way, my source may not be as credible as Ari's.

Oh come on. If I repeat my version enough it will have to be accepted. Besides, the version that she chased women around the barn yeard topless, in high heels and holding a whip has an appeal that will make it more interesting to modern readers. Did I also mention she had heavy goth makeup on and a leather mini skirt?

Wonder what would happen if I set up a blog and featured this updated rumor?

[Outshined]

Oh come on. If I repeat my version enough it will have to be accepted.

I think that was his point; the story has been repeated over the years until some people mistakenly accept it as truth.

Besides, the version that she chased women around the barn yeard topless, in high heels and holding a whip has an appeal that will make it more interesting to modern readers. Did I also mention she had heavy goth makeup on and a leather mini skirt?

Wonder what would happen if I set up a blog and featured this updated rumor?

I admit that would be more of interest to readers, and your version would almost certainly be eventually repeated as possible truth by someone else if you repeat it enough, just as this rumor has been. B)

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[Snow]

Fact: The latter-day women of the Church will never allow polygamy to be practiced.

The day you speak for women, let alone women in the Church, will be the day that Hell freezes over, is crystalized, dried and turned into hellacious freeze-dried coffee.

[Outshined]

I agree; that merely is an opinion stated as fact, like her opinion on why the practice was ended in the first place.

[shanstress70]

Fact: The early women of the Church felt demeaned, humiliated, hurt, and disrespected when they were required to practice polygamy.

Fact: The latter-day women of the Church will never allow polygamy to be practiced.

I don't really understand this, Ari, or any of you other women who say you would not practise polygamy. Do you, or do you not believe that God gives revelation to your church? If you do not, then you aren't truly LDS. If you do, then why would you argue with what God says to do? Will you only follow God if it's something that you agree with? Do you believe that God made a mistake with it the first time?

Do you believe that God truly commanded it in Joseph Smith's time? If not, then why would you be a member? (BTW, I don't believe God commanded it, which is what led me out after struggling with it for a long time.)

I think it's quite arrogant of you to say that women would never allow it to happen again. And guess what? Your church is run by men (although under the guidance of God, per say)... they would laugh if you women stood up and told them what you would 'allow'!

I am totally at a loss about women who stay in the church if they have a huge problem with it, because your church is set up to do it again, if not in this life, then in the afterlife.

And before someone accuses me of trying to get women to leave the church, no I'm really not. I just can't understand the logic, and would love for someone to explain it to me.

[Outshined]

Actually I agree with you; I don't get the "pick-and-choose" mentality some show when it comes to doctrine.

[shanstress70]

Actually I agree with you; I don't get the "pick-and-choose" mentality some show when it comes to doctrine.

Thanks, I'm glad at least you don't see me as being an 'anti'. I'm all about people staying in the LDS church if it works for them. Take my MIL - she's perfectly fine with it, saying that if God has a reason to command it again, she would go along with it and not complain. She totally believes that God is in control of her church.

I could not do that, believing that God never called or would call for such a thing, so I felt hypocritical remaining a member. But I totally respect my MIL and her beliefs.

[Outshined]

I think there is some misunderstanding on the subject among many in the modern Church. Some, like Aristotle, seem to think it was for some tittillation purpose, but I believe it was a higher law, as in the OT. God didn't give the command to Abraham for thrills, nor did he with Joseph Smith. And I can understand where you're coming from; if I didn't think it was from God, I doubt I could be a member either.

Speaking of what will happen after death, I don't think it would be an issue. At that point, you would have no prophet between you and God; it would be direct communication, and your understanding of His will would be perfect. I don't think you'd have the capacity or a reason to be upset or angry, because you'd know what He wanted and why.

As pointed out earlier, plural marriage was only for the righteous in the Church anyway, so I don't know that I or anyone I know would be worthy to live such law; that's a lot to live up to. And when we say "I'd never allow it" we say we will only follow God if it fits our own desires.

[Snow]

I don't really understand this, Ari, or any of you other women who say you would not practise polygamy. Do you, or do you not believe that God gives revelation to your church? If you do not, then you aren't truly LDS.

Bingo.

I doubt Ari is LDS. Maybe she is a member of some offshoot or derivative sect but she doesn't sound anything like a Mormon.

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

I don't really understand this, Ari, or any of you other women who say you would not practise polygamy. Do you, or do you not believe that God gives revelation to your church? If you do not, then you aren't truly LDS.

Bingo.

I doubt Ari is LDS. Maybe she is a member of some offshoot or derivative sect but she doesn't sound anything like a Mormon.

And I am speaking mostly of Ari, but there are a few other women on this board who basically say the same thing... that they would not allow their husbands to take other wives. Or that they would not allow 'hanky-panky'. Polygamy isn't about taking care of a neighbor lady who has been widowed... it's about sex!

[Outshined]

Polygamy isn't about taking care of a neighbor lady who has been widowed... it's about sex!

I don't agree; I think people make it about sex.

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

Polygamy isn't about taking care of a neighbor lady who has been widowed... it's about sex!

I don't agree; I think people make it about sex.

If polygamy didn't involve sex, then why marry the additional ladies in the first place? IMO, it all boils down to having sex with other women. Granted, some say it's to increase population... it's still about sex.

If it was just to help take care of widowed women, why not just pool your resources together, as a church, and take care of them without marrying them?

[Aristotle]

Edited by Aristotle

[shanstress70]

<div class='quotemain'>

I don't really understand this, Ari, or any of you other women who say you would not practise polygamy. Do you, or do you not believe that God gives revelation to your church? If you do not, then you aren't truly LDS. If you do, then why would you argue with what God says to do? Will you only follow God if it's something that you agree with? Do you believe that God made a mistake with it the first time?

Shanstress, polygamy has been outlawed in our Church; therefore, I am supporting Church doctrine and following God. There are many things which we do not understand, and we will have a greater understanding in the hereafter.

Do you believe that God truly commanded it in Joseph Smith's time? If not, then why would you be a member? (BTW, I don't believe God commanded it, which is what led me out after struggling with it for a long time.)

This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question. LOL

As I stated before, there are many things we do not understand. Why would God allow women to be treated so miserably?

I think it's quite arrogant of you to say that women would never allow it to happen again. And guess what? Your church is run by men (although under the guidance of God, per say)... they would laugh if you women stood up and told them what you would 'allow'!

I am totally at a loss about women who stay in the church if they have a huge problem with it, because your church is set up to do it again, if not in this life, then in the afterlife.

This has nothing to do with arrogance; it is the general consensus of the sisters in the Church.

And before someone accuses me of trying to get women to leave the church, no I'm really not. I just can't understand the logic, and would love for someone to explain it to me.

Latter-day sisters have learned from our sisters in the early days of the Church just how demeaning

it was to be commanded to practice polygamy. Polygamy was a calling, and wasn't required of all members of the Church.

So from what I gather, it seems that you think God made a mistake with the whole polygamy thing. Am I right?

This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question. LOL

Sorry... I don't get this.

[Outshined]

Is marriage about sex? No, it's not; it may involve sex, just as some polygamous marriages did, but that is not the only reason for it. I don't think it was just about sex for Abraham or anyone else in the Bible, nor was it for the early Church. Marriage is much more than sex, and it was about much more in the early LDS Church.

Aristotle likewise has a serious misunderstanding of what polygamy was about; she thinks it was "demeaning" to the sisters involved, heedless of what they themselves said about it. That is simply projecting her own feelings on others, as is her insistence that she somehow represents a "general consensus of the women of the Church". It is a case, as I said, of putting ones own earthly desires before God or His prophets. Anyone who thinks it was miserable treatment for the women involved needs to do some reading.

The Church stopped the practice, at the instruction of God, and will lkely not start again regardless of what law is passed.

By the way, Shanstress, I understand that you don't believe it was from God. I can relate to that and your decision to leave. It's the ones in the Church who think they know better than God or the prophet that come across as bizarre.