The One Subject That Could Drive Me From The Church

[seekerw]

I am a faithful Mormon male. I believe in the LDS church with all my heart, but there is one issue that has bothered me for many years about it. I once forbade myself to even think about this issue for about 10 years. It is the issue of polygamy.

Don't get me wrong. I have a testimony that it is true and it's even been revealed to me that I may well one day be living it. But it seems so blasted unfair to the women involved -- why should they have to share their husband(s) with other women?

It strikes me as very unfair that a man could have so many wives he couldn't even spend a reasonable amount of time with any one of them. Joseph Smith had about 33 wives when he died. How could he have possibly spent any time with any of them, when he had all his church, civic, and other duties to deal with, along with persecution? Brigham Young and Heber Kimball had 36 and about 42 wives respectively -- why did they need so blasted many? Kimball said he thought no more of marrying a wife than he did of buying a cow. This saying bothers me more than any other thing I've heard about this subject.

Why would Joseph Smith tell at least one of his wives that unless she accepted his marriage proposal, the gates of heaven would be closed against her forever? I understand he said something similar to at least one other. This just doesn't strike me as being right. If I told any woman that unless she married me, she would be forever barred from the celestial kingdom, I'd expect her to laugh in my face and run the other way.

I know the church is true with all my heart, but I've never been able to come to peace with the subject of polygamy, even though I know it's a true principle. I'm hoping to find some peace on the matter, and I hope I'm not opening a Pandora's box here or spreading discontent. But nobody in the church talks much about this subject and so I've been left to deal with this mostly on my own.

If anybody here has any thoughts on this subject, I'd very much appreciate you sharing them. Thank you.

Seeker

[BenRaines]

I have never quite understood how harsh a penalty it was back in the day of Moses that if you disobeyed your parents your parents had the right to go out and stone you to death. By todays standards that sounds pretty harsh. I guess it would solve a lot of crime problems but it does seem harsh.

Stoning an adulterer or adultress also sounds harsh to me. Let the Lord deal with it.

God sanctioned polygamy was practiced in ancient times and in modern times. It no longer is.

I personally would rather see polygamy than men and women living together without any marriage, same sex marriage or just plain baby mommas and baby daddies popping them out because that is what happens when a male and female have sexual relations.

According to the Doctrine and Covenants those who do not enter in to the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage will not enter in to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Their increase will stop. They can inherit the Celestial Kingdom but will be as angels. I think that is how it is said.

As a High Priest and home teacher to single sisters I see reasons all the time for the practice of polygamy. There are a lot of lonely, single sisters and few worthy priesthood holders for them to marry. These sisters hold temple recommends, attend the temple, do all that they are asked, some are marathon runners, business owners, advanced college degrees and the pool of available men is very limited. For them to be in a loving, caring relationship would add to their lives and help them in their loneliness.

To be clear I am not advocating polygamy. We as Latter-Day Saints do not practice polygamy. All I am saying is it makes a lot more sense to me than shacking up with someone or popping out babies without any regard to responsability or parenting.

Ben Raines

[KOGON]

Joseph Smith knew full well what would happen if he restored the practice of celestial plural marriage. Why then did he do it? What did Joseph know that we don't? There must have been a very good reason to put his life on the line for the that principle.

As far as it being unfair to women, that all depends on your prospective. Is it fair to a woman to not ever have the option of marriage due to the shortage of honorable men in the church? Or to be forced to choose from the possibly not so shiny"available" men. Etc.

If you were a woman, would you rather have 10% of a godly man or 100% of an ungodly man? As you have noted in church history, many women, of there own volition, chose the godly man despite the sacrifice. That is not to say that there aren't honorable "available " men in the church, but from the statistics I have heard, the honorable women in the church out number the men, and the gap is ever widening. I am quite interested to see how that problem is solved.

[MaidservantX]

I, too, have asked Heavenly Father to teach me about polygamy. This was awhile back, so I guess I was satisfied to the degree to get off the subject in my mind. Here is what I think I have learned.

Polygamy is for women and has power to increase their potential. I'm sure polygamy also increases the potential of men.

Polygamy creates men as servants, as in the story when the Savior washed the feet of his apostles. Her husband provides a house for the woman, and it is her house and she rules in it. If a man has, say, five wives, as did one ancestor of my children, Jesse N. Smith, he will provide five houses. As the father and husband, he is able save his children (and his wives) because he has the Melchizedek and Patriarchal priesthoods and he can administer ordinances, priesthood government, and blessings. His houses will be established according to the Law of the Lord because he (the husband, father) presides in his houses. However -- he doesn't 'live' in any of them, he would be traveling among them. So in that way, the woman has her house and she creates it as she pleases and she produces what she pleases in it and she reproduces her children and creates and environment for their growth. She has economic franchise, personal liberty, leadership in her home, and security and, yes, love. She and her sisters can bear one another's burdens and thereby NOT have housecleaning and minute by minute child raising be the totality of her life. She can be free to pursue her talents that allow her to contribute to the world, such as writing, music, the office of mayor, whatever. As well, in the case that there might be any injustice on the part of the husband, there would be the number of wives who might be able to protect themselves or request a change on his part. I am not attempting to put forth doctrine, but this are a few thoughts that I've had.

I, too, cannot imagine how difficult it might be to divide the affections of a husband. However, again, here are a couple of thoughts that I had. If I were to meet and think I might marry a widower who is sealed to his first wife, I would be far more content to know that he loved her wholeheartedly and intended to continue to do so. Then I would be able to trust better his love for me. I think the trouble, for me, would be the worry that one wife would be loved more than the other. But if I could trust that we all would be loved endlessly, depthlessly, constantly -- gosh, what an amazing, powerful, attractive man; and I would not be afraid. I know this isn't everything, but maybe some different ideas for some people.

[CrimsonKairos]

Polygamy is actually unfair to the man.

He has to keep track of x number of wives and their children, be responsible for them, watch over them as a righteous priesthood holder, etc...

Most people get hung up by the idea of "sex," and think the guy "has it better" because he "gets" to have sex with multiple partners. That's just rubbish. Most polygamous marriages in the early days of the Church didn't even involve sex.

It was about protecting and glorifying the righteous sisters in Zion.

I don't care whether I'm asked to practice it or not. I wouldn't seek it out, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either.

[mom_of_jcchlsm]

On the subject of sex, consider how much more often a man desires it vs. most women. I think 3 to 5 women to one man sounds about right for that purpose.

I think what would bother me most would be sharing the money. (How selfish I sound!) One breadwinner to a household seems tough in today's society. Our family certainly lives far better than necessary, but to cut my household income in half? To try to manage my home on a third? Maybe a man rises to his best potential when he has more to provide for, greater responsibility?

[church girl]

Father in heaven is not only just and merciful, he is a very loving father. I do not know how anyone could have any kind of relationship with Him and not know this to be true. "For behold, this is my work and my glory- to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Moses1:39. It would be impossible for him to instigate any program that was not calculated to bring a fullness of joy and exaltation to all those who obey him. If he did, he would cease to be God, for God cannot lie. So there is really nothing to worry about or stress over in any facet or principle of the gospel as long as we trust in him.

[Serg]

I am a faithful Mormon male. I believe in the LDS church with all my heart, but there is one issue that has bothered me for many years about it. I once forbade myself to even think about this issue for about 10 years. It is the issue of polygamy.

Don't get me wrong. I have a testimony that it is true and it's even been revealed to me that I may well one day be living it. But it seems so blasted unfair to the women involved -- why should they have to share their husband(s) with other women?

It strikes me as very unfair that a man could have so many wives he couldn't even spend a reasonable amount of time with any one of them. Joseph Smith had about 33 wives when he died. How could he have possibly spent any time with any of them, when he had all his church, civic, and other duties to deal with, along with persecution? Brigham Young and Heber Kimball had 36 and about 42 wives respectively -- why did they need so blasted many? Kimball said he thought no more of marrying a wife than he did of buying a cow. This saying bothers me more than any other thing I've heard about this subject.

Why would Joseph Smith tell at least one of his wives that unless she accepted his marriage proposal, the gates of heaven would be closed against her forever? I understand he said something similar to at least one other. This just doesn't strike me as being right. If I told any woman that unless she married me, she would be forever barred from the celestial kingdom, I'd expect her to laugh in my face and run the other way.

I know the church is true with all my heart, but I've never been able to come to peace with the subject of polygamy, even though I know it's a true principle. I'm hoping to find some peace on the matter, and I hope I'm not opening a Pandora's box here or spreading discontent. But nobody in the church talks much about this subject and so I've been left to deal with this mostly on my own.

If anybody here has any thoughts on this subject, I'd very much appreciate you sharing them. Thank you.

Seeker

I believe it can only be unfair. And, dont worry, up There no injustice will be practiced. You dont have to shatter your faith in the Truth revealed through Joseph based on this particular nonesense of injustice. Accept it as it was, an error that worked for the good in some extents and from which we got over. It didnt have to be divine litarally, i believe it was part of Joseph's genuine experience of the Scripturally Sacred, and that mixed with teh obvious wants any man has, well... What is important is that Joseph is not poligamy, and mormonism isnt either. There is no reasonable argument that could lead you to assume that Celestial Poligamy is of so sure nature that mormonism's promise IS that... or that either you get over it and accept it or leave teh Church. No. You can accept it as a historical distorion, a genuine but limited experience of the Sacred, but jeject it as a personal escathological conviction.

It remains unfair, but hey, dont leave the Church ofr such reasons, there are most compelling reasons to levae the Church than those, and even those ' most compelling' to some, are really negociable in theory*.

regards,

[shanstress70]

Most polygamous marriages in the early days of the Church didn't even involve sex.

Just curious about your source on this one.

[Serg]

Yup.

Crimson obviously is extrapolating(in all genuine and fair effort) a most commented conclusion on historical marriages of Smith. But only of him. It is said that is unreasonable to think he sustained sex within marriages other than his first. But this is a blatant leap of faith, into nothingness. The promise of plural marriage was not to sustain the widow, or to give nonsexual spiritual company to a solitary worthy member. It was a belief in literal reproduction and aquiring of family. The more wives and sons(both on earth and heaven) a man had(or proposed himself to further have) teh more exaltation he would gain(and dignity in fron of others). It is true, thoughm, that less than 25% of mormons practiced this is Utah. But it matters not, because in fact, those who didnt practice it, didnt want to! This concerned the utterly nonsensical Young generation that got ahold of this phenomena in Smith's times, (when it was secret).

Those who defend this ' utility' and nonsexual reality of plural marriages propose that its ultimate function was of a sociological order, to strengthen communal bond and needs through a Sacred experience(that they hold literally true) of family. But in this view, a man that had say, two wives, and the second he chose because he actually wanted to fulfill these former propuses, at least in principle was compromised to;

sustain economically such household and sustain openly and in an affectionate manner the spiritual development of it. Smith failed in both. There is no evidence(but to the contrary) in the reflexions of even apologists of FAIR/FARMS that Smith supported financially any other marriage other than Emma's. There is no evidence(but to factual contrary notion) that Smith openly(or intimately) supported his wives in spiritual fairness and treatment(lie and deceit among every treat he gave them is factual). There is no reasonable argument that precludes any man to think the obvious, that Smith actually had intimate relations with them. Of course, we sont expect to open their diaries and find any of his wives stating "Today, another night of great pleassure with teh Prophet" . Nor in any other suggestable way, it was, after all a victorian enviroment. But we know of fact, that Uthans under Young's regimé did have intersexual fellowship. In fact we all know of whom did Young begat his 50 plus sons. Certainly, not of his one and first wife. There was , after all, no sentiment of wrongness in this, it is only recent modern thinking apologists who persist in that this was not a reality and that all was a manifestation of charity.

Any close look at diaries, ordanation certificates, temple ceremony, Official Historical records of sermons in teh Church, oral heritage and intern ecclesistical discontent prove the contrary.

[MaidservantX]

CK did not say that sex was only had with the first wife.

Also, I agree totally that many, if not most, and if not all, polygamous marriages as practiced in the history of the Church were failures at worst and extremely painful and challenging at best.

But to say that it was very difficult and that the challenge was not risen to in the past -- i.e. they screwed it up -- does not automatically lead to a conclusion that polygamy has no potential, either earthly socially (it's just a possible system) or as a celestial principle.

I will throw in that I am not satisfied for myself that one must be polygamously married to gain exaltation. But may have more to learn on that. Maybe I don't want to know it yet. As well, I feel that there will be some instances, maybe more than we think, of women with more than one husband.

We do tend to think of marriages as ideal love affairs, when their purpose, as Serg pointed out, may be more for organizational and governmental purposes (inc. multiplication of posterity). I'm not one to say, let's wait til we get to heaven to find out, I like to know now. On the other hand, there is always going to be a lot we don't know yet. I'm sure we'll be surprised by it all.

[seekerw]

Thank you, everybody, for your comments. Somewhere in the church I've heard, and I suppose it's true, that woman was made for the glory of man. Like it or not, I think the principle of polygamy bears this out.

Maybe this is a subject I just shouldn't think too much about. But I do know that, the way D&C 132 is worded, a man can be exalted with only one wife. In fact, the plurality of wives is mentioned almost as an aside, toward the end of the section. I supppose polygamy makes practical sense -- children are central to the gospel, and a woman can only have one pregnancy every nine months and for a more limited period of her life than a man, who could conceivably father several pregnancies every night. Looking at it from that perspective, you don't need as many men as women.

But this sounds like such an unattractive way of looking at it. As I said, maybe I shouldn't think about this subject too much.

[StrawberryFields]

Colorado City is just over the hill from where I am currently living. I see many polygamist on a regular basis. I see them talk with one another and laugh. One day at Costco a man told my husband that they had icecream samples on the other isle. We are "The outsiders" and don't get spoken to.

Here are some video links about polygamy pro's and cons, from those who know it best.

http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=po...&type=video

It seems I heard something about polygamy was going to be shown on the news special Primetime; The Outsiders this week.

[Serg]

I remain after all, opposed to such a practice in my life. I believe that is culturally acceptable to allow it to those who so willfully choose. But I myself consider it unfair. Of course, women may come to like it, they may come to internalize it and even enjoy it, but for me, it will be as he captive that becomes inlove with the criminal that holds her. It can be genuine affection, hey most muslim women actually defend and enjoy it! But deep inside, and aside all 'feeling' poundering, it is, at least in principle, philosophically unfair.

But again, this is su superflous, that to leave mormonism because of this is unjustified. Retain a testimony of Jesus and of the Truth he conveyed to this particular Church. That supercedes any othet disturbance, just as cures superceed their dicoverers' source for financial founding, or personal affairs...

You may as well(unlike me, but certainly better than nothing) adhere to those who not only accept it as historically flawed but actually value it as a most escathological and future-revealing concept. Thos ewho do this, while recognizing healthily it'' unfairness, they rely on a hope(genuine) for understanding that precludes them in every manner to abandon their faith.

regards,

[StrawberryFields]

On the subject of sex, consider how much more often a man desires it vs. most women. I think 3 to 5 women to one man sounds about right for that purpose.

I think what would bother me most would be sharing the money. (How selfish I sound!) One breadwinner to a household seems tough in today's society. Our family certainly lives far better than necessary, but to cut my household income in half? To try to manage my home on a third? Maybe a man rises to his best potential when he has more to provide for, greater responsibility?

A man does rise to his best potential when he gains greater responsibility. My husband is a VP of Sales and Marketing, nothing increases a mans earning potentials as much as new house or expensive toy.

I believe that in polgamy the women also work to provide for their families, in fact in my go into one big pot and divided.

[asuccesscoach4you]

I am not sure where it comes from, but it is my understanding that we will never again practice poligamy in this life, only in the next life after the milinimum will it be practiced so there really is no need to worry about it.

[Blessed]

I do not think that God ordained polygamy. I think it was the shortcoming of Joseph Smith and those who followed him.

[Nate]

Arn't we "Blessed" to have our own opinions.

Get it?

[Blessed]

Hey Nate... mine is the only one that counts.

[CrimsonKairos]

So Serg, explain to me why you believe polygamy is philosophically unfair?

p.s. polyamy is a celestial principle, God did command Joseph Smith and others to obey it, it wasn't some delusion based on scripture, etc...

[Traveler]

I am a faithful Mormon male. I believe in the LDS church with all my heart, but there is one issue that has bothered me for many years about it. I once forbade myself to even think about this issue for about 10 years. It is the issue of polygamy.

........

If anybody here has any thoughts on this subject, I'd very much appreciate you sharing them. Thank you.

Seeker

Part of your question concerns the understanding of having and living under covenants with G-d. Those that live the covenant of marriage (also given in scripture) understand that a man is commanded and allowed one and only one wife. However, if G-d commands, according to the covenant then the man by the covenant will have additional wives but this is not of his choosing but according to commandment. A review of scripture indicates that for prophets that lived according to the commandment of polygamy that the prophet only chose one wife and that the others were given by other means other than the normal courtship method.

This covenant is similar to the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” but in other scriptures there are commandments to kill those that violate certain commandments. What this means is that no one can decide to take another’s life but according to covenant with G-d – if G-d commands to kill and take another life those that covenant with G-d are to do as G-d commands. Again understand that no man can decide to take another life. This is demonstrated several times in scripture.

The command to take a second wife must come from the High Priest of the priesthood. Today that would be the president of the Church. Since he has made it clear that there are no commandments to take additional wives we know that any one doing so is breaking the oath and covenant of the priesthood.

The Traveler

[church girl]

I am not sure where it comes from, but it is my understanding that we will never again practice poligamy in this life, only in the next life after the milinimum will it be practiced so there really is no need to worry about it.

Maybe we should wait for the millenium to be baptized or pay tithing, etc. If one principle can be put on hold, why not all of them? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Serg]

Crimson;

Why Poligamy is Unfair:

1) Numerically, it is after all, uneven, say, any number plus 1 added to one side of the relationship.

2) There is no logical necessity in this principle, is not grasped by logics, because it is a ' principle' that is only proposed as a willed act not properly a higer level ethics(which would in principle be subject to logic).

3) There is no sound argumentation for this when defending it in it's own. This is, without appealing to God's decree(with which we'll deal in short), it has no agreeable base. One defense thrown here in the thread, is that, men, de facto, have more desire towards women that these in their turn have toward men. Is these enough for justifying the satisfaction of such need? If it is, it certainly should be satisfaied NOW, as many poor men are being tried unjustly, because they, de facto, because of their intrinsic needs, NEED this practice, without which aparently, they are not only unhappy but in grave danger of commiting adultery(as their need is so profound and real that they cant take it).

If this is so, God has men castrated, they are thanks to Him canceling the practice, cut off from true selfrealization in this earth. Thus we all, can only be half happy.

Let us take this farther;

Following this line of thinking, we are certainly agreeing that in celestial spheres, where blood is no more, where hormones exist no more, we will be sure of satisfying this most urgent earthly need. What sort of erection shall we have? A spiritual one? Being that blood is what actually fills the penis, is it inmortal spirit then which will fill it? Moreobver what is the need of sex in heaven(because sex is what is being supposed when giving this ' most urgent need' of men as justification) in the manner of producing spirits? How come, a God and a Godess both join in sexual intercourse, but some times they have fleshly children and other times they have spiritual ones? Has teh Mother actually a vaginal switch whcih she turns when she wants 2 million spirit babies and when she wants 2 million of flesh? This is so, because you see, aside of the incoherence of both having flesh but begetting spiritual ones, the Father could in principle beget a fleshly boy when being with a mortal(a lower female) than when Mother in the preexistance. Hum.....

Further more;

The claim that men have more desire by nature and that they thus ought be given relief and satisfaction through new marruiages follows to be false, because any remark that you make of all, as in universal proposals(philosophical ones) ought to follow for all individuals. This claim does not follow. In fact, ssexuality is after all a social construct in many extents. Men have been raised in this patriarcal culture(angloxajon and latin) believeing and thus experiencing that they are more justified in sex and more willingly to have it. This followed since the decline of the victorian era(see Focoult) when women were being treated as sinful objects of sex, sex from which they ought to take care, lest be that they fall into a manly behaviour of actually wanting it. This was seen also in our even more patriarcal usage of power. Up to the early 50's many members yet had sex with their garments on, just as in the mids 1850's secular population made women wear a blanket on her while the man made a hole to it and had sex with her.

This compulssion of men to have much sex has been created, and is part of the chains with which satan has worked to deceive us from what is important. In many other noiwadays cultures we see that it is actually teh opposite. Many native cultures have aside other notions of gender, women who are the ones considered to have this urgent need, while men are taken to be the passive partners. What shall teh Lord make of such a man in heaven? If he doesnt claim(or has) such need, will the Lord then put it into him so he can become a succesful Semental God?

Another argument is that of quantities. If to be a God you ahve to be married(the ' logic follows' ) then being that there will be more women than men in hevaen marriages to cover this fault will take place. This is a more sound argument, indeed the only one sound. But it is sound only at the extent of agreeing that its supposition is sound, this is, that marriage ought to take place for you to be a God. This we can contend later.

As to the source of this practice:

The only mention we have of poligamy in our whole set of Scriptures are Genesis, Exodus, 1 and 2Cronicles, 1 and 2 Samuel, Jacob(book of mormon) and section 132.

Now you have to in order to understand this, get to teh shoes of this 25 year old guy who has felt been called to be a prophet. Poligamy had since(1100's) been abandoned by secular/christian people. All theological discourse that Joseph has in mind as learned points to the opposite, that it was left and ought not be taken again. Yet you say, but we have a revelation, section 132.

Well, that is another great story, I already and we all did, discuss the section 101st of doctrine and covenants in my thread of (What happened to section 101st?) . To summerize here:

1) There is no actual record of any plural marriage suggestion in writtings of Joseph prior to 1835. The revelation we hold 132, was actually rewritten, it is a copy of the copy, becauise the original was burnt by Emma(with all joy).

2)Joseph didnt recieve any Manifiesto cocnerning it, nor gave any to the fellowship of teh Church. He was directing th Church, if a policy came in, it followed that as God's Vocal he was to impart it to all. Imagine that Hinckley and other leaders secreatly are leaving now a higher law, anbd we are left behind.

3) The case wa sthat Joseph never intended it to be universal practice, but selective. It satarted with him, obviously. He was having an affiar with a young woman that lived in Emma's place, when Cowdery discovered him and told him that such conduct was unfauthfulness he excomunicated unhesitantly.

4)Many reports of womn he approached(and married) say that he told them that he received the ' revelation'(input) of the practice in teh following manner;

an angel appeared unto him, after he had been praying to understand how could Abraham practice this, he explained it to him and told him that now as understanding it he had to practice it, to what Smith refused and teh angel with teh sword threatened to kill him if not. Then, afraid andnot joyful because of having to marry other boring women, he went sadly to practice it. What?!!

5) events that followed actually make it more obvious the source of the revelation. he began to excomunicate every member that said something about him concerning teh practice.

6) he lied publicly in affidavits, interviews, and church conferences saying that he never received any such thing and that he was a married man with Enma only(this he sustained till the very week he died).

7) Paradoxically, he received after 1834(when he began practicing poligamy) a Sction, called section 101st of teh book of covenants(now suppresed in Church records), that stated that the lord God had never approved to |Joseph any plural marriage revelation, but thet every male in teh Church ought to have one wife only, and that ONLY this monogamous marriage was approved by Him. What?!

8) Confusion and contradicton lead to more apostasy in teh Chuch and less confidence on leaders.

9) Navoo proved to be teh pinacle of Smith's practice and intentions.

10) He actually condemed publicly while in Ohio(or \navoo) a member in an official letter to te government saying that this member that was praching plural marriage was a deceiver and lier, that he neve taught or practiced this. What?!

11) Finally, those members who stayed in the Church, and survived teh sujorn with Young to teh Rocky Mountains, were astonished when in 1852 Young in a Conference announced the New sempitern covenant, two things that Utah practiced, one for ten years and the other for more than 60, Slavery and Poligamy. Elder Pratt, a former victime excomunicated because of his unwillingness to let his wife marry Joseph was again received after he got a testimony of teh section 132. (you see, he was mostly an intellectual, and to say truth, section 132 has a rather profound and good literacy and rethoric, so he as, I was impressed, but differently to me, he accepted it as true). Pratt introduced this under Young, and now, members were mad, crazy, confused, how in such a world 6 years before members were being excomunicated because of their assurance of this in teh Church and now you say that teh Prophet actuallky did it, and moreover left a section?

12) Many said but hey, what about section 101st? What section 102st? replied Young. There was no such section anymore. When in Utah and after teh persecution in navoo and destruction of teh book of commandments, the section was recovered, but in teh new compendium at Utah , directed by Young, it was suppresed, and they were told that section 132 was now teh new covenant. Woodruff was asked 40 years later, what happened to teh such section, why did they take it off the cannon without Church consent, he replied' we dont know' to teh government.

13) The poligamy practiced in Utah was not that practiced by Smith either. The former had not the improved look of communal bond and sociological beneficence. Smith's was vice. Young's was porpuseful.

Now you, see, after all this well documented history, I have but no option that to believe that both the arguments and source of thuis revelation were wrong, or at least not God. Now, this is not to say that teh practice per se, was wrong. I believe it served a porpuse, and I am not ashamed of it in those terms. But I , in order to admire what it did to thsoe conviced of it, dont have to take it as a literal divene command. That is a fundamentalist attitude supported by nothing in history than mere wishful thinking.

Smith was after all a man, a man now relied on by members, a man with ' needs' as you say. Well, I belieev that he took quite literally the Word in D&C that speak of teh burning in the bossom to stablish truth, and when contemplating Abraham with many women, felt a burning in the bossom too...who would have not!?

It is an out of context revelation, filled with brilliance in each word. But false. Simply beautiful to those who parcticed it.

What I will not convene with any person, is that it still is a Celestial principle, a Law eternal. That is nonscriptural, nonphilosophical, nonlogical, and further most non historical notion.

but hey, I have no problem, with those who such thing believe, that is after all, a very sacred experience of a person, but my opinion is this after all inquiry. That's all.

Regards,

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

I am not sure where it comes from, but it is my understanding that we will never again practice poligamy in this life, only in the next life after the milinimum will it be practiced so there really is no need to worry about it.

Maybe we should wait for the millenium to be baptized or pay tithing, etc. If one principle can be put on hold, why not all of them? Doesn't make sense to me.

Nothing has been put on hold - Those that covenant with G-d do as he commands and sometimes his commands are specific to what is going on around us. It should not be a surprise when G-d gives specific commands. We should be aware of the difference between general commands and specific commands.

We are not all commanded to sacrifice our son - the commandment to Abraham was specific and not general. Likewise we are not all commanded to kill drunks - the commandment to Nephi was specific and not general. Poligamy when it is commanded is a specific commandment to specific individuals and never a general commandment to all.

The Traveler

[Dale]

Threats of damnation goes with religion for not obeying what they want you to. I don't know why some object to threats of damnation over marriage, but have no problem with threats of damnation for not believing a religion.

I have studied in depth all 33 reputed wives of Joseph Smith. It is my conclusion that scholars are misleading people. Some of these are clearly, and many possibly platonic sealings not marriages lived in mortality. Under sealing having children did not end at death, but could continue in the resurrection. As long as Joseph Smith was sealed to the women it was thought not having mortal relations did not prevent seed from being raised up. Another way of raising up seed was spiritual adoption of other men's children as Joseph's. The spiritual adoption concept is why I believe Joseph Smith engaged in some polyandrous sealings.

With this matter forcing yourself to like a matter of your history you don't like cannot be done. You can learn to live with the matter uncomfortably, but that's all. You have to learn to respect Joseph Smith for other aspects of his prophetic calling you like more. I am Community of Christ/RLDS which vocally used to deny the polygamy allegations regarding Joseph Smith. Today many feel his was involved and see no reason to deny anything. These members of my faith feel our faith is in Jesus not dependant on our historical religious leaders historically acting according to how we would prefer.

What item of Joseph Smith & polygamy bothers you? I confess I don't believe in plural marriage. But I have most of the information relating to the 33 wives at my disposal.