The One Subject That Could Drive Me From The Church

[MaidservantX]

Just another little angle, not meant as a rebuttal to anything. But since we're talking about who needs physcial marital relations more. I am a person who does not think that 'men need it more'. I agree that that is a social construct. But to the degree that any man or any woman 'needs' it, polygamy helps the ladies out too. Instead of a woman being single, remaining single, because there is not a man for her, and thereby being required to be celibate in order to be holy. That's painful for the ladies, too. Polygamy could conceivably solve that problem.

Serg, the idea of how reproduction will occur in future physical (exalted) conditions of the body is a very interesting thing to ponder. But it is not unknowable. That, I suppose, is another topic for another thread.

Dale, just give us a taste. Maybe not all 33 ladies, but pick two or three of your favorites and give us a few trivia facts. Almost no one knows anything about them, and I would love to have more knowledge.

[shanstress70]

Dale, just give us a taste. Maybe not all 33 ladies, but pick two or three of your favorites and give us a few trivia facts. Almost no one knows anything about them, and I would love to have more knowledge.

Xhenli, if you do a google search of 'Joseph Smith Wives', the first result is an interesting page that talks a bit about each of his wives. Interesting reading indeed.

[Maureen]

<div class='quotemain'>

Dale, just give us a taste. Maybe not all 33 ladies, but pick two or three of your favorites and give us a few trivia facts. Almost no one knows anything about them, and I would love to have more knowledge.

Xhenli, if you do a google search of 'Joseph Smith Wives', the first result is an interesting page that talks a bit about each of his wives. Interesting reading indeed.

You mean like this:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

M.

[shanstress70]

Yes, like that... but I didn't want to be accused of putting an 'anti' link on the forum, and I'm sure someone will consider that anti.

[Dale]

Using Todd Comptom In Sacred Lonliness I feel a sound case can be constructed against the claim Almira & Delcina Johnson were Joseph's wives. Benjamin & Almira both claimed Hyrum Smith approved of Almira's sealing to Joseph Smith. That's impossible as Hyrum Smith according to other books like Mormon Enigma was not yet brought in on his brothers practice. That he was fighting against it until late May & maybe I guess early August. (Mormon Enigma pg.141) Yet Todd Comptom documents the sealing between Almira & Joseph had to happen around April 2-22, 1843. (In Sacred Lonliness pg.6)

Almira & her brother Benjamin lived in different places than Joseph smith. So in order to travel to Nauvoo it had to be in the month of April. I heard an August date proposed in Mormon Enigma, but unlike Comptom Newll & Avery did not document how that date worked with real history. If the claim about Hyrum was untrue that Almira and Benjamin made then they possibly lied about Joseph Smith. While I am open to the problem I have pointed out being resolved by someone smarter than myself & Comptom it poses a problem for their testimony.

The claim that Delcina was a wife relies on Benjamin Johnson's testimony alone which may or may not be trustworthy.

[shanstress70]

Using Todd Comptom In Sacred Lonliness I feel a sound case can be constructed against the claim Almira & Delcina Johnson were Joseph's wives.

In addition to his other wives, as seen here (Note, this is an LDS site... NOT anti):

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/AF/...62167&lds=0

[MaidservantX]

I went to the site. I didn't read everything all at once, of course, but I did read a few bios. Nice stuff. Thanks. (referring to the josephsmithswives site)

So . . . in other words . . . lol . . . it's not a Church coverup or secret?

(referring to the familysearch site)

[Serg]

Yes, I concede that the only sound argument in favour f poligamy is it's numerical 'inclusiveness' . This is, Oh, poor women who are devasated because they were left alone(a social implanted need-consider happy nuns for example), hey, at l;east poligamy will solve this, and women will get to have partners.

First of all, may I reply justly:

In the earthly context of this argument; what makes a person think he/she needs a partner to be happy? Well, interaction and love is teh point of life, but it doesnt mean that out of necessity you DO have to encounter someone. It would follow the case, what if of all earthly available mormons to choose there are actually none who make you tingle? Who really are lovable to you? Should you, for the sake of fulfilling this great etarnal ' partnership' law, get married to any you dont love? A society that makes it's individuals think this is sick. A person ouht, to gain an even higer experience of humanity, interact in a love affair, but if it follow the case that there is no actual possibility, no preassure should be upon such person, much less eternal damnation.

In the celestial context:

What makes you believe that out of all the mroe than 60 billion people that may have well inhabited the planet up to now, those saven in heaven will share a statistic of more women and less men? Should then, because you arrived(and it was the case that women will be more overthere) and have no partner , out of no special feeling ought to engage in a mariage? No. Sick. Now, again, what if(as is a TRUE possibility), there are, in heaven, at elast, from our earth, more men than women? What will such God of Marriages do? These men 'need'(something that is erroneous) marriage to be exalted, what shall they do? Marry other men with their spouses, as in poliginy? No! says the patriarcal mormon, only men have such privilage(sorry-obligation?). Well, what if it happens that more men than women were saved ultimately? Or will God manipulate souls of women to be saved as to ensure his male sons to have each at least one partner? Or will this God of marriage bring from other earths women to marry such worthy males?

It looks, by all sides, a thing ultimately contradictory and unstable.

At the core of all this issue, lies the concept that would make a whole thread possible. Because of this concept is it so lawful to infer that there will be plural marriage in heaven according to members, and this is, that Marriage is necessary and ultimately desicive in determining yor entrance into Godhood.

This I particularly dont believe, but hey, it's open to interpretation. It will be said that it is(in fact, wher it is only) very clear in section 131-132, when speaking of teh higer degree for those married. Though this is scripturally true, it may be subject to challenge easily. However, those who simply accept it as what it has been taken to mean, have yet further to account for the previous contratictory outcomes of such concept, in respect, to plural marriage.

There is no way of avoiding the outcome. The concept of marriage as essential to Godhood has to be settled.

[BenRaines]

Well the scriptures settle it for me. Doctrine & Covenants 131 & 132 seem pretty plain to me.

What I know from my experience in this life, 35 plus of them as an adult, I won't count the 18 before that, is that there are a great number of worthy, loyal sisters who are doing all they can to follow Christ and his teachings. I also know that there are much fewer men who are as devoted to serving others, worthy, loyal followers of Christ. There are some that is true but not near the number of sisters.

Take away the Seven Deadly Sins: Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed and Sloth and you will find that it is very easy for large numbers of people to live together and get along.

I believe that we look at the idea of polygamy with mortal eyes and with some of the above mentioned thoughts in our hearts and say "It could never work, it would be demeaning to women", when if the above mentioned feelings are removed from the equation there could be amazing harmony.

Enough said by me.

Ben Raines

[Serg]

If this works for you, hey, it's welcomed.

I just say, it doesnt do it for many others.

We ought then to learn how to coexist in the Church, lol.

[BenRaines]

Sorry Serg but I don't know of anyone that is forced in to polygamy in the LDS church. Last I knew it was no longer practiced since some time in the late 1800s.

Only discussing why I could see a need. I don't believe in polygamy as a current practice and have no knowledge if it will be at some later point. Not sure how that could or would be disagreable.

Nice thing about the end of this life. The person who will be making the judgements is the one who gave his life so that we might be able to return to a Heavenly Father. I think he will be looking for reasons to let us in not keep us out.

Ben Raines

[CrimsonKairos]

Serg, I used to respect alot of your posts, but recently, it seems someone else has taken over your account and been posting under your name.

Your recent posts would make a hearty anti-mormon blush.

Allow me to tally the ever-growing causes of my concern, based on your posts. You believe:

(1) Joseph Smith lied about practicing polygamy (even though he told Emma);

(2) Joseph Smith fabricated a revelation to satisfy his carnal urges;

(3) Brigham Young led the Church astray as its prophet with polygamy, et al;

(4) D&C 132 is not in fact what it says it is: a canonized revelation that means what it says;

(5) Pres. Hinckley is out of tune with God on issues such as what music is appropriate in Church, whether women can have the priesthood or not, et al;

(6) Your posts carry an undercurrent of psuedo-contempt for the early Church leaders, doctrines you find offensive, and current Church leadership...

I could go on. I've been quiet for awhile to see if it was a passing phase with you. Maybe your mom or dad died and you're lashing out at God or something. Instead, what I see is a growing trend of rebelliousness of spirit and disrespect for those called of God and anointed to serve as His mouthpieces on earth.

Why do you list LDS as your religion when you so obviously care nothing for the Church or its teachings?

[Dale]

The long list of plural wives attributed to Joseph Smith unlike Brigham Youngs wives can be seperated into platonic & regular polygamy claims. Todd Comptom himself doubts a mortal relationship of any sort happened between Joseph Smith, Helen Mar Kimball and Patty Sessions. With Helen he thinks when she got older a mortal relationship could have ensued.

Throughout his book he says that nothing relating to the private details if any are known. So it's unlear whether all the 33 had a honeymoon with Joseph Smith or whether they were sealed to him in name only. Though he & others point to a few specific claims of mortal relations by some of the Nauvoo participants in sealing. A few of the women like Lucy Walker, Melissa Lott Willis, Eliza R. Snow were some that claimed a mortal relationship with Joseph Smith.

The Family website list of names connection with Joseph Smith is confusing in light of problems with the list. Todd Comptom reported Sarah Lawrence denied any relationship with Joseph Smith. Her sister Mariah died in 1847 so was unable to confirm or deny the rumors about her & Joseph Smith.

The claim Sylvia Sessions had a child by Joseph Smith has not been verified. Todd Comptim cited the old claim as fact which it isn't. Ugo Perego has spent several years off & on studying the claim based on DNA and has not yet verified it. Josephine Fisher may not be Joseph's child. Without a child the Sylvia Sessions & Joseph Smith might be only a platonic sealing.

-------

Joseph Smith was said to have lied to the church & public, his wife about not being a polygamist. He supposedly told Emma only later. Where does the Bible say a prophet cannot lie about something as important as polygamy?

If D.&C. 132 is of God it declares Joseph Smith innocent of adultury. Only if he had a false revelation of man or the Devil was the revelation made to satisfy carnal urges.

Jame's Whitehead in his Temple Lot case testimony claimed D.&C. 132 was a fake as he saw the original at Winter quarters. That it had been altered in the LDS D.&C. to implicate Joseph Smith in lying about being innocent of mortal polygamy. Without seeing the unpublised manuscript what he said may not be true. It may be what he saw, but he could have lied also. Many of my church members doubt what he said was true.

[StrawberryFields]

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

It is on here in Utah now.

[KOGON]

<div class='quotemain'>

<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

So the church, generally, has been told not to practice plural marriage, but God could then command specific individuals to observe it?

[CrimsonKairos]

If it weren't against the law of the land, sure. Why not?

[KOGON]

If it weren't against the law of the land, sure. Why not?

It may interest you to know that the Edmunds Tucker Act, the one that made plural marriage a crime, was repealed back in the 1970's.

[church girl]

If it weren't against the law of the land, sure. Why not?

When has God ever taken into account whether or not a particular municipality would approve of his divine will?

If there were a water shortage in Europe and baptism was outlawed, then what? The practice of plural marriage was against the law of the land since it began in the 1800's. As a child we listened to the faith promoting stories of Christians as they smuggled bibles into Russia in opposition to the then law of the land, and the many miracles that happened as God delivered them from the authorities. We perceive that the Christians of the ancient church suffered a martyrs death as they where thrown to the lions ( it was illegal to be a Christian), we are inspired by their commitment to the gospel despite their sufferings. And there are many more examples of the same.

The rules seem to change when it's our turn or a principle conflicts with our traditions.

I think that if God wants something done, a man made law is going to be the least of his concerns.

[Fiannan]

No reason to be mad about Joseph Smith having more than one wife any more than one should condemn thr prophets of the Old Testament. Same God, same human race, you know.

[KOGON]

It would stand to reason that God's laws would supercede any and all laws made by man. It wouldn't even be an issue if godly men made the laws, but that isn't the case here in the good ole USA.

More to the point, there are hundreds of different governments upon the earth, all with laws that differ from each other. Now if God said to obey the laws of man, you may (theoretically) have to change your religion every time you crossed a border, to suit the laws of that land. This could present a bit of a problem if you believe that all are saved/exalted upon the same principles. The way I see it, you then have two choices if you want to maintain any degree of consistency in your religion. 1) Compromise enough principles to be in compliance generally, or 2) maintain your religious convictions in whole at all cost.

[shanstress70]

Serg, I used to respect alot of your posts, but recently, it seems someone else has taken over your account and been posting under your name.

You recent posts would make a hearty anti-mormon blush.

Yeah, not that it's any of my business, but I have been wondering why Serg still considers himself LDS.

[CrimsonKairos]

In response to church_girl and KOGON:

God operates within the limits of His children's free agency. In other words, He doesn't force anyone to be good. I believe He guided and protected the creation of the USA as a free nation in the late eighteenth century (and during the war of 1812 to be sure). I believe a main reason He did this was to have a country open enough to allow the restoration of His Church in these latter-days.

Let's pretend that once upon a time, the U.S. government said: "You cannot practice polygamy or your Church will be stripped of legal protection, financial assets and your members will be jailed." Hmmm, sounds awfully familiar. Let's translate the above threat into it's practical implications: "You can endorse polygamy as a Church, and cease to be a Church and operate as a Church...or you can abandon polygamy and continue to publicly and legally teach your gospel, administer your ordinances, and worship God according to your beliefs."

Now since God isn't going to "force" the government to give legal and political support to His Church, and since His Church must be allowed to work and serve and operate freely to prepare the world for Christ's Second Coming, then the only viable option is to withdraw the requirement to live a certain law.

Again, it's not about God fearing government or anything silly like that. It's that He operates within limits, and those limits are the ones we place on Him by our decisions and choices. God didn't force the Pharaoh to free Israel. He gave the Pharaoh ten pretty compelling reasons to do so (read: the plagues), but he couldn't "make" the government of Egypt do what He wanted just because He wanted it.

As for changing religions with every border we cross...in many places, that's almost what we must do. It's illegal to proselyte in many countries. Hence, there are no public church buildings, no public worship services, no active missionary force, etc...

[church girl]

In response to church_girl and KOGON:

Let's pretend that once upon a time, the U.S. government said: "You cannot practice polygamy or your Church will be stripped of legal protection, financial assets and your members will be jailed." Hmmm, sounds awfully familiar. Let's translate the above threat into it's practical implications: "You can endorse polygamy as a Church, and cease to be a Church and operate as a Church...or you can abandon polygamy and continue to publicly and legally teach your gospel, administer your ordinances, and worship God according to your beliefs."

CrimsonKairos

Isn't that why the church,by no later than 1890 (and possibly sooner) publicly dis-associated itself with that principle? It was never a tenant of the church, but a law of the priesthood, which is why Joseph Smith,as president of the church, would cut people of for living it in the church without priesthood sanction. At the same time, he and others lived it. He was actually in a position where he himself could have been excommunicated from the church. The church can accept or reject any doctrine they choose, it is something of a theological democracy. The priesthood cannot. This explains to me why the hierarchy of the church continued in the practice and supported efforts for its continuation after the manifesto of 1890. The role of the president was a dual role at least, one as head of the church and one as head of the priesthood. As head of the church, Wilford Woodruff had the responsibility of preserving it. As president of the priesthood, he was bound by the laws of God, thus he appeared duplicitous.

The limits that God operates in his only, not mans. He gave man agency to choose for himself to follow him or not. When Jesus came in the meridian of time, he went to God's chosen people, HIS church, and said follow me. Some did, and the rest crucified him. Where in the scriptures is an example of one of God's prophets putting aside a law or a commandment because he might lose property or be put in jail? To my knowledge there is no such example. Why would they trade the exaltation for temporary comfort.

In response to church_girl and KOGON:

"Now since God isn't going to "force" the government to give legal and political support to His Church, and since His Church must be allowed to work and serve and operate freely to prepare the world for Christ's Second Coming, then the only viable option is to withdraw the requirement to live a certain law."

Interesting point. Withdraw the law to be able to prepare the way for the second coming of Christ, who can and will only come when there is a people living all his laws.

[Dr T]

...prepare the way for the second coming of Christ, who can and will only come when there is a people living all his laws.

What?

[Nate]

Churchgirl, are you implying that we as a people can change the time either sooner or later of when Christ will come?