Anddenex Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 (edited) I guess the ultimate question is what is the purpose of plural marriage on earth. For marriage one could say its to build strong families and faithful children. But then Joseph smith never had any children in the plural marriages. So the strengthening families and go forth and multiply angles are not too convincing. Perhaps each of these women had children from a previous marriage, and that's the reason. I'm not sure.We have shared, Jacob 2: 29-30, the main reason is produce a righteous seed. You are judging this practice from one individual, have you viewed how many children resulted from other polygamous relationships within the Church -- Brigham Young had somewhere in the ball park of 50 or more children with his wives. But, this isn't convincing. :) Lorenzo Snow had around 42 children as a result of polygamy. Still not convincing? :)Convincing, as a result of one man, whose life was cut short? Now, an interesting point of contemplation, how many children would he have had if he wasn't murdered at the age of 38 (and a few months)? Edited June 26, 2013 by Anddenex 44 Changed to 39 -- Doh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingintheNorth Posted June 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 Thats a good point. and certainly jesus never had any children either. I wonder what the total amount of children born from plural marriages is. Church statisticians get on it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 (edited) Convincing, as a result of one man, whose life was cut short? Now, an interesting point of contemplation, how many children would he have had if he wasn't murdered at the age of 44?Err . . . 38, you mean? In addition, Smith faced tremendous opposition from his own wife. He could well have--frankly--found it hard to get away. I wouldn't fall into the trap of claiming Smith was a monogamous or that his plural marriages were platonic; but I do suspect he wasn't having nearly so much sex as his critics want us to believe.I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a second-generation American Mormon alive today who doesn't have at least one polygamist in their family tree. I have a polygamous male in my father's ancestry, and my third-great-grandmother on my mother's side remarried a polygamist after her first husband died. Edited June 26, 2013 by Just_A_Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 My uneducated feeling is that Joseph understood the importance of sealing but didn't so much attach it to romantic marriage. He was sealed to many for the sake of sealing different families together as opposed to collecting women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 (edited) Err . . . 38, you mean? In addition, Smith faced tremendous opposition from his own wife. He could well have--frankly--found it hard to get away. I wouldn't fall into the trap of claiming Smith was a monogamous or that his plural marriages were platonic; but I do suspect he wasn't having nearly so much sex as his critics want us to believe.I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a second-generation American Mormon alive today who doesn't have at least one polygamist in their family tree. I have a polygamous male in my father's ancestry, and my third-great-grandmother on my mother's side remarried a polygamist after her first husband died.ehhmmm....did I say 44...go check again He was martyred in 18[44] -- 1805 to 1844 = 44 - 5 = 38 (need to remember month and birth date). Those number are easy to confuse (no one disagree, just smile and wave, or smile and nod).I agree to the other paragraphs. Edited June 26, 2013 by Anddenex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 ehhmmm....did I say 44...go check again Ah. My bad, naturally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 Ah. My bad, naturally. Am I going to have to sit between you two at lunch in a couple of weeks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 Yes Mother. We be good, promise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 Maybe I'll put estradling75 in the middle. haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 Yes Mother. We be good, promise.HA! Speak for yourself, Anddenex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 HA! Speak for yourself, Anddenex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 Maybe I'll put estradling75 in the middle. hahaWait...... WHAT?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 Not to worry, Estradling. I've made it through 2 LDS.net gatherings without biting anyone . . . . . . yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 Not to worry, Estradling. I've made it through 2 LDS.net gatherings without biting anyone . . . . . . yet. Well this isn't a lds.net gathering. You must be on good behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 You must be on good behavior. Wait...... WHAT?!? :)Why doesn't somebody tell me these things? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted June 26, 2013 Report Share Posted June 26, 2013 Not to worry, Estradling. I've made it through 2 LDS.net gatherings without biting anyone . . . . . . yet.This will be my first, no promises...wait, I mean, " be good, promise." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
free_thinker Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 (edited) For some reason I was struck by the Spirit when I read this so I wanted to share:"Joseph displayed an astonishingly principled commitment to the doctrine [of plural marriage]. He had to overcome opposition from his brother Hyrum and the reluctance of some of his disciples. Reflecting years later on the conflicts and dangers brought by plural marriage, some church leaders were struck with the courage Joseph displayed in persisting with it. And when one recalls a poignant encounter like that between [counselor in the First Presidency] William Law and Joseph in early 1844, it is difficult not to agree. Law, putting his arms around the prophet’s neck, tearfully pleaded that he throw the entire business of plurality over. Joseph, also crying, replied that he could not, that God had commanded it, and he had no choice but to obey" (B. Carmon Hardy).Regards,FinrockThen the practice just ended. Just like that. No explanation as to why. God wanted it, revealed it in a "new and an everlasting covenant" then changed His mind. Yet the most striking thing to you is the man's persistence on following up on something Wilson W. would later repeal (but coincidentally he was also under pressure from the U.S. government to do so)... are you... like do you.... where do you... like like I mean on wikipedia one can clearly see the government not liking polygamy. It's not anti mormon, it's just history.Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPoland Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaEdmunds Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAnd finally to make SURE that if they did not comply they did this:Edmunds–Tucker Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaI mean .... I mean... just.... Edited July 5, 2013 by free_thinker Added sources Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted July 5, 2013 Report Share Posted July 5, 2013 A wise person recently observed that the best way for Mormons to hide an uncomfortable historical fact is to canonize it in their scriptures:The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have. … I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. … Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nader Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 · Hidden Hidden Yeah, who is that guy? I'd love to google him :) Link to comment
taurus22122 Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 · Hidden Hidden Maybe I'll put estradling75 in the middle. hahaFinding a post like that in polygamy thread, after reading how Joseph Smith did polygamy even with other married women! (I didn't know that one!) is just priceless. Lol Link to comment
Suzie Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 · Hidden Hidden Finding a post like that in polygamy thread, after reading how Joseph Smith did polygamy even with other married women! (I didn't know that one!) is just priceless. LolHe was indeed sealed to some (already) married women. However, being sealed to doesn't automatically mean he consummated such marriages. Link to comment
Guest iwovu2 Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 · Hidden Hidden Hi, could someone give me details on how it worked? I'd love to know if the couples only slept seperately as in Monday = Suzie, Tuesday = Pamela, Wednesday = Marie ect... or if they ever had one night where the husband slept with all his legally married/sealed wives together and yeah... Ever happened? Link to comment
Suzie Posted July 7, 2013 Share Posted July 7, 2013 · Hidden Hidden I'd love to know if the couples only slept separately as in Monday = Suzie, Tuesday = Pamela, Wednesday = Marie ect...My Mondays are busy with Family Home Evening. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.