Polygamy Possible In Canada?

[Amphiblitz]

Am I the only one confused here?

[Maureen]

<div class='quotemain'>

...I assume that you already knew JS was a polygamist and were challenging me about the polyandry. I guess you have now figured out that JS took already married women as his plural wives.

I can even give one example:

Zina Huntington married Henry Jacobs in March 1841 and then married Joseph Smith later that year, October 1841; while she was pregnant with her first child.

M.

Here's a better list of JS's plural wives, date they married JS, their age and their existing husband's name:

Lucinda Morgan Harris - 1838 - 37 - George W. Harris

Zina Huntington Jacobs - Oct. 1841 - 20 - Henry Jacobs

Presendia Huntington Buell - Dec. 1841 - 31 - Norman Buell

Sylvia Sessions Lyon - Feb. 1842 - 23 - Windsor Lyon

Mary Rollins Lightner - Feb. 1842 - 23 - Adam Lightner

Patty Bartlett Sessions - March 1842 - 47 - David Sessions

Marinda Johnson Hyde - April 1842 - 27 - Orson Hyde

Elizabeth Davis Durfee - June 1842 - 50 - Jabez Durfee

Sarah Kingsley Cleveland - June 1842 - 53 - John Cleveland

Ruth Vose Sayers - Feb. 1843 - 33 - Edward Sayers

Elvira Cowles Holmes - June 1843 - 29 - Jonathan Holmes

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

M.

[Aristotle]

Aristotle and I were discussing this subject earlier. We have come to the conclusion that many of the stories representing plural wives have been buried in church history. Unfortunately, there exists today a mentality which seeks to silence women in the Church on such matters; particularly in regard to polygamy. We are warned to never criticize our leaders. But it is only in righteousness that we are asked to support them. Personally, I believe that Emma was perfectly capable of "kicking Eliza down the stairs"...not that this behavior is acceptable or excusable; it is certainly understandable that a woman pushed to her limit might resort to take such action. Apparently, this story carries enough weight that Sister McConkie shared it in a stake Relief Society meeting. As stated before, some would like to minimize the feelings of those sisters who had/have legitimate complaints. (Re: Mormon Women on Prozac). Polygamy will never fully be understood, or why it was necessary to subject the early women of the Church to such torment, degradation, disrespect, and emotional abuse. Perhaps that's why the brethren are continually "warned" against exercising unrighteous dominion (that would include insulting and demeaning women, even in a forum such as this), or it is "amen to the priesthood". This means that any man who abuses a woman...either physically, emotionally, mentally, physically, or spiritually, has lost their priesthood power, credibility, and effectiveness.

- Mrs. A

[Outshined]

It is understood that no official Church documentation has been provided thus far to either substantiate or unsubstantiate Sister McConkie's story re Emma.

No unofficial sources exist to substantiate it either, but they do to disprove it, from those who were there. No official documentation is needed. I'll take the word of those who were there over a legend.

It is understood that a rumor does not need official documentation to be recognized as such. The incident did not happen.

Off topic, I have read the posts about not having more than one account, and the fact that many in this forum use aliases.

And some have been banned yet chose to sneak back under new names. New name, same contention.

Aristotle and I were discussing this subject earlier. We have come to the conclusion that many of the stories representing plural wives have been buried in church history. Unfortunately, there exists today a mentality which seeks to silence women in the Church on such matters; particularly in regard to polygamy. We are warned to never criticize our leaders. But it is only in righteousness that we are asked to support them. Personally, I believe that Emma was perfectly capable of "kicking Eliza down the stairs"...not that this behavior is acceptable or excusable; it is certainly understandable that a woman pushed to her limit might resort to take such action. Apparently, this story carries enough weight that Sister McConkie shared it in a stake Relief Society meeting. As stated before, some would like to minimize the feelings of those sisters who had/have legitimate complaints. (Re: Mormon Women on Prozac). Polygamy will never fully be understood, or why it was necessary to subject the early women of the Church to such torment, degradation, disrespect, and emotional abuse. Perhaps that's why the brethren are continually "warned" against exercising unrighteous dominion (that would include insulting and demeaning women, even in a forum such as this), or it is "amen to the priesthood". This means that any man who abuses a woman...either physically, emotionally, mentally, physically, or spiritually, has lost their priesthood power, credibility, and effectiveness.

- Mrs. A

Nice conspiracy theory.

Sounds like a lot of opinion, with little fact. Asked to provide evidence of this ominous "mentality", we'll hear silence. Just like the evidence for the folk tale about Emma's assault of Eliza Snow.

The "weight" of the story is the same as any heresay, nothing more. She simply made the error of repeating it in a Church meeting. It's unfortunate that you think that gives it some legitimacy that it does not have.

Thanks for your opinions, and you understand that many Latter-day Saints will disagree with them. I agree with one statement; you really do not understand much about polygamy or what went on with it in the early Church.

[Snow]

This morning, I've been doing some research in regard to the story that Bruce McConkie's sister told in our stake Relief Society meeting. I believe this sister's name is Margaret McConkie Pope. I'm in the process of trying to reach this sister to verify this information. Until I receive confirmation, I will refer to her as Sister McConkie.

As I recall, Gracia Jones was also mentioned at this stake meeting. I found several websites which referred to Emma "kicking Eliza down the stairs", but have yet to find anything in this regard on the Church's official website. My hope is to substantiate this information from Sister McConkie and find out her source. One thing is very evident. Why would a woman of such caliber, well respected in the Church, one who is sought as a speaker in the Church, risk her reputation by giving a ficticious account of Emma's life?

Have you not the ability to reason? Because you once heard a woman whose name you are not sure say something, you think that it must therefore be true. Bloody Brilliant!

I'll tell you what the stupid source is: Wilhelm Ritter von Wymetal, an antiMormon author who had lived in Utah for four or five months wrote the account in 1886 - some 40 plus years after the alledged incident. AND HEY! GUESS WHAT! The antiMormon author gives no source for the rumor other to say that it was common knowledge.

If someone you think was a Sister McConkie failed to do her homework and in so failing, passed on the same stupid antiMormon tripe you are trying to pass off now, then shame on both of you.

[Amphiblitz]

OIC. Thanks, Snow.

[Aristotle]

For the record, Aristotle and I emailed our photo to Heather...in fact, we sent it twice...asking for her assistance to post it for us. We are represented in this forum as a couple...(see our photo)...which is why I sign my posts, "Mrs. A"...to distinguish between his posts and mine. Aristotle is French, so he goes by the nickname of "Aris from Paris". ;-)

- Mrs. A

[Outshined]

As soulsearcher said, this is not to be worked out on the board. The discussion is through PM.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

As soulsearcher said, this is not to be worked out on the board. The discussion is through PM.

Thank you Outshined.

Besides, wasn't this supposed to be MY string...about polygamy in Canada?

[Outshined]

Besides, wasn't this supposed to be MY string...about polygamy in Canada?

Oops! Let's address your points:

Potential problems:

1. Immigration. If "paper marriages" (entered into for the sole purpose of obtaining a green card) will become even more prolific.

Quite possible. As I pointed out, polygamous marriage is acheiving acceptance in the Netherlands already, hot on the heels of same-sex marriage.

2. Abuse. Just as two male roommates entered into a marriage in Canada, solely for the economic benefits (taxes and social welfare programs), so I can picture some groups setting up communal relationships that are other than about something other than simply setting up a large family.

Yes, I could see this happening as well. People get married now for such gain, so it is certanly a possibility.

3. Destruction of civil marriage. Eventually the convulated relationships will become so absurd, that government will get out of the marriage business all together, and simply arbitrate civil unions.

Yes, I can see that as well. Some say the government should not be involved in such relationships anyway, as they are usually church-ordained.

[Aristotle]

Prisonchaplain, I would be curious to know as a result of the topic you introduced, what is your concensus of the likelihood of Canadian Christians practicing polygamy, if polygamy is legalized in Canada?

- Mrs. A

[prisonchaplain]

Prisonchaplain, I would be curious to know as a result of the topic you introduced, what is your concensus of the likelihood of Canadian Christians practicing polygamy, if polygamy is legalized in Canada?- Mrs. A

I can only speak with limited authority for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (their version of our Assemblies of God). NO WAY, AIN'T HAPPENING--NOT EVEN A 1% CHANCE! However, I'm also quite certain that most, if not all, Christian denominations will oppose such arrangements.

[Aristotle]

3. Destruction of civil marriage. Eventually the convulated relationships will become so absurd, that government will get out of the marriage business all together, and simply arbitrate civil unions.

This legislation is leading up to the destruction of the traditional American family, Christian values, morals, ethics, etc. I've never seen such a blatant attack on God, country, and family. As a Christian nation, isn't it time that we, as the majority, take back our power by participating in the legislative process?

I can only speak with limited authority for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (their version of our Assemblies of God). NO WAY, AIN'T HAPPENING--NOT EVEN A 1% CHANCE! However, I'm also quite certain that most, if not all, Christian denominations will oppose such arrangements.

Amen!

- The Aristotles

[Aristotle]

My problem with this line of thought is that it's not really destroying the american familys that don't go along with this line of thinking. A good strong christian family is not going to roll over and change their entire view of marriage, just cause the law of the land change.

Take a look at the WoW, the world around us if full of things that go against the WoW and yet low and behold how many members follow The WoW still?.

The world changes, it's a fact. Progress it a 2 edged sword, both good and bad can come of it. However if we focus on only what you see is wrong with it, you risk stopping it completely.

America was founded as a Christian nation, and the majority of the poplulation in America are Christians. If we, as Americans, lose our Constitution by allowing it to be amended into oblivion, we will lose the very right to keep us a free and independent nation. Our founding fathers did not sacrifice their lives for us to burn the American flag and all that it stands for under the guise of First Amendment rights.

There is a distinct difference between progression and digression.

- Mrs. A

[Outshined]

<div class='quotemain'>

Prisonchaplain, I would be curious to know as a result of the topic you introduced, what is your concensus of the likelihood of Canadian Christians practicing polygamy, if polygamy is legalized in Canada?- Mrs. A

I can only speak with limited authority for the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (their version of our Assemblies of God). NO WAY, AIN'T HAPPENING--NOT EVEN A 1% CHANCE! However, I'm also quite certain that most, if not all, Christian denominations will oppose such arrangements.

True, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be legalized. Most Christian denominations oppose same-sex marriage, but it is accepted by more nations and states all the time.

[Fiannan]

True, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be legalized. Most Christian denominations oppose same-sex marriage, but it is accepted by more nations and states all the time.

What nations? Dying nations such as Holland or Sweden? The Russian Orthodox Church recently broke all relations with the Swedish Lutheran Church over allowing same sex marriage. All 12 Lutherans left in Sweden were probably quite offended with Russia. I'm sure most Immams in Sweden would agree with what Russia did.

[Aristotle]

Polygamy is considered an abomination by Christians. In a Christian nation, polygamy is outlawed. However, if Christians are subjected to an oppressive government, then corrupt laws will be enacted (such as killing baby girls in China). This is one of the reasons we are fighting the war in Iraq...not to change their religion or customs...but to protect innocent people from a despot ruler. Prior to the war, women and children were unprotected, as reports have shown that many of them were found buried in mass graves.

- Mrs. A

[Outshined]

True, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be legalized. Most Christian denominations oppose same-sex marriage, but it is accepted by more nations and states all the time.

What nations? Dying nations such as Holland or Sweden? The Russian Orthodox Church recently broke all relations with the Swedish Lutheran Church over allowing same sex marriage. All 12 Lutherans left in Sweden were probably quite offended with Russia. I'm sure most Immams in Sweden would agree with what Russia did.

England and the US, for example, where same-sex marriage is now legal. Did you miss Elton John's recent "wedding?"

[Fiannan]

In the USA? Is that where Elton got "married"? No he did not. All same sex marriage proposals have been rejected by voters. Maybe England has slid, but it was not a church wedding.

[Outshined]

In the USA? Is that where Elton got "married"? No he did not. All same sex marriage proposals have been rejected by voters. Maybe England has slid, but it was not a church wedding.

Vermont or Massachusetts for example...legal is legal, and the door has been opened. And it's not like gay couples care if it is a "church wedding", since most churches oppose homosexuality. We may not like it, but closing our eyes to it won't make it go away.

[Outshined]

an interesting article

http://www.q-notes.com/top01_123105.html

Hmm, even more widespread than I'd thought.

[Aristotle]

Like the spread of AIDS...

As Christians, we have the right and responsibility to repeal unconstitutional laws which break down our traditional family values in this country. The majority rules!

- Mrs. A

[Fiannan]

The right to privacy is a good start -- it is not in the Constitution and was first introduced to repeal state laws against birth control in the 60s, then used to legalize abortion, then used to repeal all state laws against same-sex sodomy.

[Aristotle]

My question is how far would you roll back the changes to the constitution? Would you take it back to the same thing it was the day it was signed?

Post Fourteenth Amendment era...otherwise, there would be a need for another women's revolution. ;-)

- Mrs. A

[Outshined]

The right to privacy is a good start -- it is not in the Constitution and was first introduced to repeal state laws against birth control in the 60s, then used to legalize abortion, then used to repeal all state laws against same-sex sodomy.

I think we can safely say that American citizens would never give this up. It seems most people would rather have privacy than safety or governed morality.