Polygamy Is Part Of Mormon Heritage

[dakota]

As I got finished discussing with Ray about the "Big Love" show, polygamy is part of this Church's history and its heritage. If it was not for Joseph Smith, the "claimed" prophet who started it all, then we wouldn't have this mess today. These fundamentalist sects originated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This Church shares the responsibility for the origins of this legacy and lifestyle thrust upon women. An attempt to systematically control and in some cases abuse women.

[Outshined]

As Ray answered quite well on the other thread,

First of all, God did authorize the practice polygamy at one time in the Church and then later revoked His authorization.

Second, there is merit to all of the actions of God, despite what you think or believe.

And lastly, neither Joseph Smith nor any other prophet in the Church is responsible for the people who left and started another sect or division.

Exactly.

[prisonchaplain]

As Ray answered quite well on the other thread,

First of all, God did authorize the practice polygamy at one time in the Church and then later revoked His authorization.

Second, there is merit to all of the actions of God, despite what you think or believe.

And lastly, neither Joseph Smith nor any other prophet in the Church is responsible for the people who left and started another sect or division.

Exactly.

Here's my "outside looking in" take.

Outshine and Ray: The Church and prophets were always right. It's perfectly acceptable for a policy like polygamy to change, if the living prophet says that God's authorization has been revoked.

Dakota: We can say it's okay all we want. We need to own up to the messiness of how things played out.

Two thoughts: 1. Most Christians will at least raise an eyebrow at the notion that the move from polygamny to monogamy was purely the design of God. My guess is that even many non-religious people are convinced that there was so political pressure that went into the reversal of policy. So, just be aware that your non-LDS neighbors will not easily just accept that God's will changed with the times.

2. It is this kind of messiness that makes us skeptical of open canon, and of modern prophecy not being subordinate to Scripture.

[lisajo]

This polygamy stuff is a waste off bored space it has been descused to death i mean look at the bored isee at least 4 topics on this.....................come on lets talk about something else

[Snow]

An attempt to systematically control and in some cases abuse women.

That's an incomplete sentence. We are going to have to require you to complete your thought and correct your own work.

And while you do that, using your line of reasoning, could we say that Christ, being the originator of Christianity, is responsible for the Christian murder and torture of the Christian Spainish Inquisition?

Why yes - yes we could.

2. It is this kind of messiness that makes us skeptical of open canon, and of modern prophecy not being subordinate to Scripture.

That kind of thinking gets me every time I hear it.

God used to talk to us, but he stopped.

The whole of his talking to us starts with an author - we know not who in we know not when - and ends with an author - we know not who in we know not when. God himself is silent on what constitutes his word but we trust that we know exactly what it is comprised of.

[prisonchaplain]

Prisonchaplain says: 2. It is this kind of messiness that makes us skeptical of open canon, and of modern prophecy not being subordinate to Scripture.

That kind of thinking gets me every time I hear it. God used to talk to us, but he stopped.The whole of his talking to us starts with an author - we know not who in we know not when - and ends with an author - we know not who in we know not when. God himself is silent on what constitutes his word but we trust that we know exactly what it is comprised of.

Fortunately, only the fundamentalists, who argue that there is no modern revelation whatsoever, need answer this contention. Pentecostals/Charismatics allow for modern revelation, but say they must be measured against the Scripture we already have.

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

I don't see that polygamy is a problem. LDS, former LDS, branched off from LDS, Hindu, Tribal or whatever, why is it such a big deal to people? People should be free to do pretty much whatever they want, whatever they feel is right -- up to the point where it infringes on others' rights. Can anyone tell me how a group of people practicing polygamy hurts the community?

The US laws against polygamy were not enacted because polygamy was offensive, but rather to "go after" LDS. In that sense, such laws totally fly in the face of personal freedoms and freedom of religion (which the US is so proud of).

[Maureen]

I don't see that polygamy is a problem...Can anyone tell me how a group of people practicing polygamy hurts the community?

'mom' - Read this link to give you an idea how polygamy can hurt a community (people) - from a former poygamous community member:

http://helpthechildbrides.com/stories/laurachap.htm

M.

[shanstress70]

Can anyone tell me how a group of people practicing polygamy hurts the community?

To me, the biggest problem is that marriage is arranged for young girls brought up in these communities. They often have no say in the matter, and are married at 14 or 15. This is rape, plain and simple. Women are expected to have a child per year. Some of the compounds do not allow TV, internet, or even music. They are not allowed to go to college.

The young men are sometimes kicked out of the compound to lessen the competition for the older men. Many of these young men or boys are referred to as 'lost boys', as they have no where to live, and many have no education.

There is no way for most men with so many wives and children to financially support their huge families, so they are on welfare, costing taxpayers.

They are taught that outsiders are the enemy, and not to befriend or trust anyone.

The genepool is too restricted in many of these communities, and diseases are starting to show up in the children because of inbreeding.

Is that enough?

By the way, I don't have the time to include sources on all of this. I got this info from documentaries that I've watched on PBS, A & E, etc. I've also spent some time on a message board for people who are able to eventually leave this lifestyle. I have communicated via e-mail with one lady who is in Warren Jeffs' group, who was on a documentary and defends the lifestyle.

[Ray]

Pentecostals/Charismatics allow for modern revelation, but say they must be measured against the Scripture we already have.

How do you do that exactly, prisonchaplain? I’ve heard several people tell me what they think in the past, but just in case you think differently than any of those people, I’d really appreciate it if you would tell me exactly how you actually go about doing that.

For instance, I’ve heard some people say: “where the Bible is silent, we are silent… “

…so does that mean that if God gives specific revelation about something and those specifics aren’t already in the Bible, we shouldn’t accept them as the words of God?

For instance, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that God authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days?

Or in other words, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that our Lord authorized Joseph Smith to authorize other people to proclaim His gospel, establish an organization of believers, build chapels and other buildings for education, including temples, and publish the teachings they receive from our Lord in magazines and newspapers and books and manuals, which authorized members of His kingdom should use to teach His doctrine and administer all of the ordinances God wants His children to accept whenever they choose to accept the salvation He offers them through the instrumentality of His church upon the Earth?

Or, if you don’t want to tackle that one, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that our Lord revealed His gospel to ancient inhabitants of America, including His prophets who revealed His will to other people, including a person named Moroni who was resurrected after his death by our Lord, who then appeared to Joseph Smith and authorized him to get the records he had hid in the Earth, telling him that he was to translate those records with the help of God into what we now know as the Book of Mormon?

Or, if you don't want to tackle either one of those issues, I’m simply asking you to tell me how you would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

[shanstress70]

I think that, unfortunately, we can't trust men enough to accept revelation from God, unless it's from within ourselves, for ourselves. If we start accepting it, there will be people everywhere who will say that the received revelation from God... maybe God told a pedophile that it's a good thing to have sex with minors, or maybe He told an alcoholic that it's good to drink alcohol. Many of us are skeptics because of bad people in the world.

I don't think that God would require me to trust someone who says he is a prophet, because He knows that I'm jaded because of evil people in the world.

Why does God have to use a 'prophet' anyway? Why can't He personally tell me what He needs to? Why does it have to go through some man? I believe that He can and does tell me on a personal basis. That's what a 'personal relationship with Christ' means.

[Ray]

Why does God have to use a 'prophet' anyway? Why can't He personally tell me what He needs to? Why does it have to go through some man? I believe that He can and does tell me on a personal basis. That's what a 'personal relationship with Christ' means.

Heh, you’re so close, shanstress, but you still cannot see the connection.

If you say God has assured you of the truth, you are also saying God has given you personal revelation, so when you declare what God has told you, you are acting as a prophet of God. But it doesn’t stop there, because when you say God has assured you of the truth I can also find out for myself whether or not what you are saying is true by also receiving revelation from God.

Or in other words, when I say I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and President Hinckley is also a prophet of God, I am saying God has assured me that those people are prophets of God by assuring me of the truth those people are sharing.

Or in other words, if you have a personal relationship with God, you don’t need a prophet of God to tell you what is true, but once God assures you of the truth, you will also know when other people are declaring the truth, by Asking God, with whom you have a personal relationship.

[StrawberryFields]

I think that, unfortunately, we can't trust men enough to accept revelation from God, unless it's from within ourselves, for ourselves. If we start accepting it, there will be people everywhere who will say that the received revelation from God... maybe God told a pedophile that it's a good thing to have sex with minors, or maybe He told an alcoholic that it's good to drink alcohol. Many of us are skeptics because of bad people in the world.

I don't think that God would require me to trust someone who says he is a prophet, because He knows that I'm jaded because of evil people in the world.

Why does God have to use a 'prophet' anyway? Why can't He personally tell me what He needs to? Why does it have to go through some man? I believe that He can and does tell me on a personal basis. That's what a 'personal relationship with Christ' means.

Shanstress,

Our prophet is not just "some man" to the members of this church, please remember that.

Yes I have received personal revelation about things in my own life as well.

[Outshined]

To me, the biggest problem is that marriage is arranged for young girls brought up in these communities. They often have no say in the matter, and are married at 14 or 15. This is rape, plain and simple. Women are expected to have a child per year. Some of the compounds do not allow TV, internet, or even music. They are not allowed to go to college.

The young men are sometimes kicked out of the compound to lessen the competition for the older men. Many of these young men or boys are referred to as 'lost boys', as they have no where to live, and many have no education.

Wasn't there an old TV movie about that, with Conrad Bain (the dad from Diff'rent Strokes)?

[Jason]

Well, since Im the only one here who's ever officially belonged to a Polygamous Mormon Church, I think you should be asking me some of these questions.

To me, the biggest problem is that marriage is arranged for young girls brought up in these communities. They often have no say in the matter, and are married at 14 or 15. This is rape, plain and simple. Women are expected to have a child per year. Some of the compounds do not allow TV, internet, or even music. They are not allowed to go to college.

The young men are sometimes kicked out of the compound to lessen the competition for the older men. Many of these young men or boys are referred to as 'lost boys', as they have no where to live, and many have no education.

True, but not of every Mormon Fundamentalist group. The Colorado City group (Warren Jeff's FLDS) does all these things and more. It's quite horrible. But the Allred Group in Bluffdale UT does not.

There is no way for most men with so many wives and children to financially support their huge families, so they are on welfare, costing taxpayers.

Most men do support their families financially. It's the few that don't who are on welfare. In my experience, I'd say that 80% had no problems supporting a second family.

They are taught that outsiders are the enemy, and not to befriend or trust anyone.

Not in the Allred group. And many in the FLDS also don't believe this is the case.

The genepool is too restricted in many of these communities, and diseases are starting to show up in the children because of inbreeding.

Is that enough?

Do you have hard data that supports this? I've heard this too many times, but I've yet to actually see evidence.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

I think that, unfortunately, we can't trust men enough to accept revelation from God, unless it's from within ourselves, for ourselves. If we start accepting it, there will be people everywhere who will say that the received revelation from God... maybe God told a pedophile that it's a good thing to have sex with minors, or maybe He told an alcoholic that it's good to drink alcohol. Many of us are skeptics because of bad people in the world.

I don't think that God would require me to trust someone who says he is a prophet, because He knows that I'm jaded because of evil people in the world.

Why does God have to use a 'prophet' anyway? Why can't He personally tell me what He needs to? Why does it have to go through some man? I believe that He can and does tell me on a personal basis. That's what a 'personal relationship with Christ' means.

Shanstress,

Our prophet is not just "some man" to the members of this church, please remember that.

Yes I have received personal revelation about things in my own life as well.

Which means you are also a prophet of God, to the degree of your revelations from God.

And btw, I have never meant to imply the idea that I have received as many revelations from God as President Hinckley has, or as Joseph Smith has, but if all other prophets of God publish written works declaring all the revelations they have received from God, and I read all of those writings and then get a witness from God of those truths, I will then know just as much as those other prophets of God about the truths they revealed in their writings.

And I do enjoy reading good books. :)

[shanstress70]

Do you have hard data that supports this? I've heard this too many times, but I've yet to actually see evidence.

Here is the article I'm speaking of. It is not hard data, but was interesting. It may not be 100% factual, but does get you thinking.

http://www.human-nature.com/science-as-culture/walker.html

And Jason, I realize that not all of the polygamous groups have these problems. But they are certainly problems that DO occur in some of the groups. I was only speaking for the ones that I've read about or seen on documentaries.

[shanstress70]

Shanstress,

Our prophet is not just "some man" to the members of this church, please remember that.

Yes I have received personal revelation about things in my own life as well.

Actually, SF, I wasn't specifically speaking of your prophet. I was speaking in general... most of the prophets in different religions are men.

[Maureen]

The genepool is too restricted in many of these communities, and diseases are starting to show up in the children because of inbreeding.

Do you have hard data that supports this? I've heard this too many times, but I've yet to actually see evidence.

Here's an article:

Doctor: Birth defects increase in inbred polygamy community

Associated Press/February 10, 2006

Salt Lake City -- A rare, severe birth defect is on the rise in an inbred polygamous community on the Utah-Arizona border, according to a doctor who has treated many of the children.

Intermarriage among close relatives is producing children who have two copies of a recessive gene for a debilitating condition called fumarase deficiency. The enzyme irregularity causes severe mental retardation, epileptic seizures and other effects that often leaves children unable to take care of themselves.

Dr. Theodore Tarby has treated many of the children at clinics in Arizona under contracts with the state. All are retarded, the neurologist told Salt Lake City television station KSL-TV.

The children live in the twin polygamist communities of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz....

http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy417.html

M.

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

Polygamy does not equal abuse/rape/molestation. Abuse/rape/molestation are valid civic issues, meaning that the government ("we, the people") do have a vested interest in preventing these atrocities and aprehending and procecuting the perpetrators. Polygamy in and of itself, however, does not negatively affect society, nor does it harm minors (who by social custom are a group protected by society). As has been pointed out here and elsewhere, polygamist groups can and do exist without rates of abuse/rape/molestation higher than the average population. Just because a notable few are steeped in iniquity does not prove a causal relationship between a polygamous lifestyle and perversions. It's like saying that three known serial killers owned iguanas as children, therefore owning iguanas is bad and shouldn't be allowed. If you can show me that 1)all or very near all serial killers owned iguanas and 2)no or very, very few non-iguana-owners become serial killers then we have a possible causal relationship. I don't see that with polygamy. I see one sick group skewing the results for the rest. Maybe if polygamy were legal, and you actually had to get a marriage license and both parties had to sign it, it would be easier to aprehend those who are outside the law on other issues.

[Snow]

Fortunately, only the fundamentalists, who argue that there is no modern revelation whatsoever, need answer this contention. Pentecostals/Charismatics allow for modern revelation, but say they must be measured against the Scripture we already have.

Which means that either God is limited to only repeating himself or that whatever God chooses to say now is not as important or as true as what he already said before. Either way it seems to be a case of man limiting God.

[Snow]

To me, the biggest problem is that marriage is arranged for young girls brought up in these communities. They often have no say in the matter, and are married at 14 or 15. This is rape, plain and simple.

There you go again. It is not rape plain and simple. Some of it may be morally reprehensible and some of it may be criminal but to dismiss all as simple rape is naive and uniformed

[prisonchaplain]

I don't see that polygamy is a problem. LDS, former LDS, branched off from LDS, Hindu, Tribal or whatever, why is it such a big deal to people? People should be free to do pretty much whatever they want, whatever they feel is right -- up to the point where it infringes on others' rights. Can anyone tell me how a group of people practicing polygamy hurts the community?

The US laws against polygamy were not enacted because polygamy was offensive, but rather to "go after" LDS. In that sense, such laws totally fly in the face of personal freedoms and freedom of religion (which the US is so proud of).

I have not studied the history of persecution of Mormons, but have always guessed the opposite--that it was shock and outrage at the practice of polygamy that led to the "going after" of the LDS. Do you have some sources I could look into to, because your argument here probably ties together all three or four strings on polygamy right now.

Bottom-line question: Did polygamy lead to persecution of Mormons, or was polygamy the weapon anti-Mormons chose to use to go after them?

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

Pentecostals/Charismatics allow for modern revelation, but say they must be measured against the Scripture we already have.

How do you do that exactly, prisonchaplain? I’ve heard several people tell me what they think in the past, but just in case you think differently than any of those people, I’d really appreciate it if you would tell me exactly how you actually go about doing that.

Let me start by saying that the vast majority of prophetic words I've heard have been specific to the group assembled, and very local in application. For example, "God is pleased with your worship--continue to seek my face." Or, "God is asking us to search our hearts, to repent of our wicked ways, to give up our pet desires, and trust him for all." After such a word, the pastor, or leader conducting the meeting, will usually call for a time of prayer--urging people to heed the word that's been given.

For instance, I’ve heard some people say: “where the Bible is silent, we are silent… “

…so does that mean that if God gives specific revelation about something and those specifics aren’t already in the Bible, we shouldn’t accept them as the words of God?

That sounds like an awfully narrow rubric. My guess is that most would start from the opposite point--if the word given does not specifically contradict the Bible, we start with the presumption of validity.

For instance, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that God authorized Joseph Smith to establish His church in these latter days?

Quite frankly, had Joseph Smith gotten up in the middle of a meeting and said, "Thus saieth the Lord, all Christian denominations are wrong, their pastors and professors are corrupt...there's been a general apostasy such that the Church has not truly existed for 1700 years..."

Chances are pretty strong that it would have been declared, quite instantaneously "not of God." Which, is pretty much what happened, even though Smith's revelation was pre-modern Pentecostalism.

Or in other words, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that our Lord authorized Joseph Smith to authorize other people to proclaim His gospel, establish an organization of believers, build chapels and other buildings for education, including temples, and publish the teachings they receive from our Lord in magazines and newspapers and books and manuals, which authorized members of His kingdom should use to teach His doctrine and administer all of the ordinances God wants His children to accept whenever they choose to accept the salvation He offers them through the instrumentality of His church upon the Earth?

Yes. And, had JS been Pentecostal, he likely would have caused a split, such as happened when a brother declared that, in accordance with Acts 2:38, we must all be rebaptized in the name of Jesus Only, and that God is not a Holy Trinity, but that Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is the Holy Spirit (the fancy theological term for this 4th century heresy is monarchial modalism). Out of that prophetic word (which we deem false) grew Oneness Pentecostalism.

Or, if you don’t want to tackle that one, how would you use the Bible to either confirm or deny the thought that our Lord revealed His gospel to ancient inhabitants of America, including His prophets who revealed His will to other people, including a person named Moroni who was resurrected after his death by our Lord, who then appeared to Joseph Smith and authorized him to get the records he had hid in the Earth, telling him that he was to translate those records with the help of God into what we now know as the Book of Mormon?

Angels on Assignment, Heaven is So Real, etc.--all books written by Christians who said they had visions. Usually, the individual first "vets" the vision through his/her local church. If there is a sense that the visions/dreams are authentic, word begins to spread, and the message reaches a broader audience of Christians.

My guess is that in the case of JS, he would not have gained the approval of his local church, and would have chosen to venture out on his own, spreading the word--pretty much as he did.

Or, if you don't want to tackle either one of those issues, I’m simply asking you to tell me how you would measure modern revelation from God against the Scriptures we already had when those modern revelations were given?

As much as we believe in modern revelation, we also believe in the revelations already given--most especially the Bible. Additionally, the gifts of the Holy Spirit include our teachers, leaders etc. So, if a modern revelation ran contrary to what we have already received, it would receive extreme scrutiny and skeptcism. However, if it truly was of God, the Bible tells us that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against my church. It would stand.

[Ray]

Bottom-line question: Did polygamy lead to persecution of Mormons, or was polygamy the weapon anti-Mormons chose to use to go after them?

That was only part of the problem, because they also didn't like people declaring that there was more revelation from God than what was contained in their Holy Bibles.

And btw, if you like to read, prisonchaplain, I recommend the "History of the Church" written by Joseph Smith. You can download it for free from the main Church website in several formats.