Apostasy in the Reorganized Mormons and LDS Mormons

[Publisher]

Alma, does this mean that the rlds church viewed Joseph smith as a fallen prophet due to his doctrine on polygamy? If so why doesn’t the lds church view him this way?

The “official” RLDS belief is that Joseph Smith Jr. was not a “fallen” prophet…that view is held by the Church of Christ Temple Lot. Some of the LDS claim the RLDS church believes it…but 'officially" they do not.

For most RLDS, they deny JS Jr.s involvement in polygamy. For most RLDS, they claim Joseph was ignorant of the goings on in Nauvoo, and when he did find out what was taking place among some of the heirarchy, he was beside himself and “repented” of allowing or suggesting the “speculation” that bred polygamy.

 

[Alma147]

But that isn’t what the question asked. The question, posed by johnnycatholic, was this:
Alma, does this mean that the rlds church viewed Joseph smith as a fallen prophet due to his doctrine on polygamy? If so why doesn’t the lds church view him this way?

The LDS Church believes that God commanded Joseph Smith to establish plural marriage in the Church and that it was a commandment for some of the members until 1890. So, they could hardly believe he was a fallen prophet for following God’s commandments.

Alma doesn’t appear to want to reply to this, or he is busy elsewhere. What do YOU think?

I’m happy to answer it, I just hadn’t logged on to see if there were any responses until now.

Some have claimed that Joseph Smith had two or three children with his polygamous wives but it’s unknown for certain if he had any. Part of the problem in this circumstance comes from people believing that everyone who was sealed to Joseph Smith was actually a wife. That wasn’t necessarily the case. Sealings were performed for life or for the afterlife and sometimes for both. Brigham Young once noted his sadness that none of Joseph Smith’s children ended up on the LDS Church. That indicates to me that he most likely didn’t have children from his plural wives or at least children who survived.

We don’t view Joseph Smith’s or Brigham Young’s or others’ plural wives as “meanderings” but rather as duties commanded by God.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

The “official” RLDS belief is that Joseph Smith Jr. was not a “fallen” prophet…that view is held by the Church of Christ Temple Lot. Some of the LDS claim the RLDS church believes it…but 'officially" they do not.

For most RLDS, they deny JS Jr.s involvement in polygamy. For most RLDS, they claim Joseph was ignorant of the goings on in Nauvoo, and when he did find out what was taking place among some of the heirarchy, he was beside himself and “repented” of allowing or suggesting the “speculation” that bred polygamy.

As you say, the “official” stand is that he was not a fallen prophet, but that is also under the official claim that Brigham Young was responsible for polygamy. The unstated yet understood corollary was expressed by Alexander Smith (son of Joseph jr.) when he came to Utah: “… if he did have any such revelation, or teach any such doctrine, or practice it, he must have got out of the way.”

Alma

 

[Publisher]

As you say, the “official” stand is that he was not a fallen prophet, but that is also under the official claim that Brigham Young was responsible for polygamy. The unstated yet understood corollary was expressed by Alexander Smith (son of Joseph jr.) when he came to Utah: “… if he did have any such revelation, or teach any such doctrine, or practice it, he must have got out of the way.”

Alma

“Official” is the key. The “official” position of the RLDS is very similar to the “official” position the LDS hold on other items…while the Adam-God doctrine was taught by Brigham Young…the “official” position of the LDS church is the Adam-God doctrine isn’t true…the RLDS says “officially” that Joseph never taught polygamy…but many are rethinking it…but “officially” they stand by their claims regardless of documentation.

 

[KatieD]

I think you’re right. My mother-in-law is RLDS, and she has always said that Joseph Smith didn’t practice polygamy - even though she has seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. My experience with some relatives is that there is a huge schism between RLDS and LDS with lots of finger pointing between them.

 

[Publisher]

I have some RLDS friends, Mark Scherer(SP) is the new church historian. He is re-vamping the RLDS history making it more “accurate” and clarifying many of the “myths” that the church history has perpetuated in the last 170 years. Some of those updates is finally acknowledging that Joseph Smith did in fact have something to do with polygamy. He has come under severe criticism from the more conservative members of the church, some even calling for his excommunication…he’s even received a few “death threats” over his up to date history.

 

[Allweather]

The LDS Church believes that God commanded Joseph Smith to establish plural marriage in the Church and that it was a commandment for some of the members until 1890. So, they could hardly believe he was a fallen prophet for following God’s commandments. Alma

While I realize that you can’t possibly explain why none of the LDS people I know have even the most basic knowledge of LDS polygamy, it certainly does appear to me that the LDS church actively deemphasizes the historical record these days. About two months ago I watched a program on BYU TV that covered the early beginnings of the LDS church in a fair amount of detail. I paid close attention, waiting for them to bring out the polygamy thing. But they hardly mentioned it.

My ex-LDS fiance was shocked to find out about the polygamists Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It was news to her. Her father thinks that the Mormons moving west practiced polygamy because they had a great surplus of women and shortage of men, which is nonsense. I don’t know how much her oldest son, recently returned from a mission, knows about it, but I aim to find out some day when the time is right to inquire. I once asked her younger brother about JS’s 30-some wives in the presence of his own wife, and he waved the question off saying, “it doesn’t matter.” I replied, well, I kind of feel like it DOES matter. If Mormons are so shy about the polygamy of their founding prophets and their successors that they deliberately suppress the histories, and avoid teaching the foundational aspects of it to their followers, and LDS men are afraid to discuss polygamy in front of their spouses, then it must really matter. This is a history that the Mormons are ashamed of, by and large. Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Alma147]

While I realize that you can’t possibly explain why none of the LDS people I know have even the most basic knowledge of LDS polygamy, it certainly does appear to me that the LDS church actively deemphasizes the historical record these days. About two months ago I watched a program on BYU TV that covered the early beginnings of the LDS church in a fair amount of detail. I paid close attention, waiting for them to bring out the polygamy thing. But they hardly mentioned it.

Current public treatments of past church history generally ignore the practice of polygamy. This is the result of criticisms brought against the Church since its manifesto of 1890. When church leaders referred to their plural wives or even their mothers-in-law, critics of the Church claimed that Mormons were still trying to promote polygamy. As a result of this negative criticism, the LDS Church minimized its references to polygamy and plural wives. However, anyone who takes a class on LDS Church history in the LDS Church Education System will study polygamy. It is inseparable with an accurate understanding of the Nauvoo period, and federal legislation against the LDS Church. I think it’s similar to circumcision. I don’t see many Christian churches teaching anything about circumcision, unless they’re studying Genesis or the Judaizers in the New Testament.

My ex-LDS fiance was shocked to find out about the polygamists Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It was news to her.

She couldn’t have been very active in the LDS faith and not known about these facts. Good heavens, all she needed do is read the Doctrine and Covenants or attend Sunday School when they teach the lives of the presidents of the Church. I just looked at the Church History student manual for Institute of Religion classes to see if discussion of polygamy was limited.(I know it’s covered extensively because I’ve taught the class for many years; but I wondered if it’s downplayed at all.) In the index there are dozens of references–including under the heading “Joseph Smith” a subheading titled “plural marriages of.”

Her father thinks that the Mormons moving west practiced polygamy because they had a great surplus of women and shortage of men, which is nonsense.

Not entirely nonsense. There is naturally a slightly higher percentage of males born over females; but there is a higher death rate of young boys over girls making a higher percentage of women in most societies where elective abortion doesn’t occur. Additionally, more women convert to Mormonism than do men. It’s a sad fact acknowledged by most missionaries. However, the fact that every woman who wanted to be married was married in early Mormon society isn’t necessarily the reason for polygamy, but perhaps one of the results.

and he waved the question off saying, “it doesn’t matter.” I replied, well, I kind of feel like it DOES matter. If Mormons are so shy about the polygamy of their founding prophets and their successors that they deliberately suppress the histories, and avoid teaching the foundational aspects of it to their followers, and LDS men are afraid to discuss polygamy in front of their spouses, then it must really matter. This is a history that the Mormons are ashamed of, by and large. Wouldn’t you agree?

No, not at all. The problem I see here is you refer to it as a “foundational aspect” of Mormonism where I see it as almost an artifact. Mormonism is essentially the same religion with or without polygamy. The fact that its practice was terminated has no real impact on our theology. It is and was entirely dispensable. That’s why your fiance’s brother could say it doesn’t matter. It may matter to you, but it doesn’t to 99% of today’s Mormons. While it did serve several very useful purposes, it isn’t foundational any more than circumcision is foundational to Christianity.

Do you get the impression that the Mormons here who have defended the Mormon practice of polygamy are ashamed of it? Does it appear to you that I’m ashamed of it? I would hope not; because I’m not the least bit ashamed of it.

Alma

 

[Allweather]

Current public treatments of past church history generally ignore the practice of polygamy. This is the result of criticisms brought against the Church since its manifesto of 1890

That has been my impression, too, that Mormons avoid discussing polygamy because the larger (Christain) society finds the practice repulsive. Recently, Mitt Romney was quoted in the NY Times as calling Mormon polygamy “bizarre.” Better-informed Mormons usually point to the command-of-God factor in defending what mainstream Christians consider adultery.

I think it’s similar to circumcision. I don’t see many Christian churches teaching anything about circumcision, unless they’re studying Genesis or the Judaizers in the New Testament.

I’m not following this argument. Circumcision is not, nor has it ever been except during the very earliest Christian period, a Christian item. Moreover, it is a real stretch to compare circumcision to polygamy. I don’t see how they’re comparable in any way whatever. You’ll have to explain this more deeply to me.

She couldn’t have been very active in the LDS faith and not known about these facts.

She was quite active, a faithful tither, and raised her children Mormon, the eldest of whom did a mission in Mexico, finished last year. But she isn’t a studious person, and had no interest in the arcaneries of Mormon history or theology. It wasn’t until we spent several months going over history and the specifics of Mormon teachings, that she realized what she’d been involved with. It was polygamy above all else that broke the back. The point being, no one in her church was going out of their way to present the facts of Smith’s and Young’s, and other Mormon patriarchs, polygamist practices or teachings. I believe that this relates to what you say about Mormonism deemphasizing the history. Not only does the LDS church fear irritating the Christian world at-large, it also fears irritating its own members, especially the women, who generally find a lot less to like in polygamy than the men.

Not entirely nonsense. There is naturally a slightly higher percentage of males born over females; but there is a higher death rate of young boys over girls making a higher percentage of women in most societies where elective abortion doesn’t occur. Additionally, more women convert to Mormonism than do men. It’s a sad fact acknowledged by most missionaries. However, the fact that every woman who wanted to be married was married in early Mormon society isn’t necessarily the reason for polygamy, but perhaps one of the results.

No matter how you slice the cheese, that is a pathetic justification for institutionalized polygamy as a command from God. Mormons weren’t the only people headed west in the mid-19th century. Other groups undoubtedly had the same, or very similar, mixes of men/women ratios, yet did not adopt polygamy as an institution founded by God. Not that it wasn’t probably practiced here and there, surely it was, but never approved, and CERTAINLY never seen as Christian, but as a sinful product of separation from Church and God

While it did serve several very useful purposes, it isn’t foundational any more than circumcision is foundational to Christianity.

First, which “very useful purposes” did polygamy serve?

Second, I’ve gotten the distinct impression from watching and participating in various threads here over the past few months, that polygamy is a distinctive and necessary aspect of Mormon progression into the Celestial heavenlies. Isn’t it a Mormon teaching that there will be polygamous arrangements in the Celestial Kingdom with men having celestial sex with their “wives” and thereby creating new souls to be imbedded in human bodies on other worlds?

Do you get the impression that the Mormons here who have defended the Mormon practice of polygamy are ashamed of it? Does it appear to you that I’m ashamed of it? I would hope not; because I’m not the least bit ashamed of it. Alma

No, the very true believing Mormons, who know all the “modern scriptural” supports for polygamy, are very defensive about it. I can’t recall there being any women defenders, though. All men. I take this to be significant. I rather suspect that women are far less appreciative of polygamy than men, for obvious reasons having to do with natural sexual inclinations among unregenerate males. I’m always tempted, whenever discussing Mormon polygamy with an admiring Momon male, to wonder how his wife feels about it. We know something about how Emma Smith felt about it, and other Mormon women whose remarks have been recorded and published.

 

[Art_Vanick]

Why did the Mormon Church (led by Brigham Young ) break away from the Reorganized Mormon Church (later led by Joseph Smith III) since they both claim to have the “correct teachings” of Joseph Smith?

Sounds like both churches were in a state of Apostasy?

Hi,
Both groups were in a state of apostasy, unlike their claims that all of Christianity was apostate and that only they were the “one true church”. Ever since Mormonism has been inexistence, it has claimed to be the one true church, and even in the recent PBS show on the Mormons, one of their spokespersons made the claim that they are the one true church.

Of course, all of their claims have to be suspect at best, since their “bible”, the Book of Mormon is nothing but a plagiarism of a nineteenth century unpublished novel that was written by a man who was trying to get his family out of debt. So since the Book of Mormon is phony, so is any “doctrine” based on it.

Art

 

[Alma147]

Of course, all of their claims have to be suspect at best, since their “bible”, the Book of Mormon is nothing but a plagiarism of a nineteenth century unpublished novel that was written by a man who was trying to get his family out of debt. So since the Book of Mormon is phony, so is any “doctrine” based on it.

Way to go Art! Nice to see someone occasionally demonstrating Mark Twain’s aphorism.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

That has been my impression, too, that Mormons avoid discussing polygamy because the larger (Christain) society finds the practice repulsive.

You misunderstand. Polygamy was more of a club to beat up on Mormonism than anything else. The combined force of the US government was brought against the LDS Church. When we referred to it after that time–even obliquely, it brought out additional opportunities to claim that we were actually treasonous and liars at the core.

I’m not following this argument.

I’m saying that polygamy isn’t a core doctrine. You don’t need to study it to be a faithful Mormon any more than you need to study circumcision.

The point being, no one in her church was going out of their way to present the facts of Smith’s and Young’s, and other Mormon patriarchs, polygamist practices or teachings.

Why should they? It isn’t a current doctrine any more than circumcision or animal sacrifice are.

Not only does the LDS church fear irritating the Christian world at-large, it also fears irritating its own members, especially the women, who generally find a lot less to like in polygamy than the men.

Eyewash. If we were worried about irritating the Christian world at large we wouldn’t send missionaries to Catholic or Baptist areas, we wouldn’t excommunicate people for heresy or adultery and we’d tell intellectuals that their behavior isn’t really important after all. I don’t imagine you’ve discussed this matter with very many polygamists. I have, and know by personal experience that the women are more often proponents for polygamy than are their husbands. Mormon polygamy wasn’t entered into from the prospect of unlimited sex. Mormon men were about as reluctant to raise 5 families as today’s men are to raise one family. The commitment in time and money was absolutely daunting.

First, which “very useful purposes” did polygamy serve?

You apparently missed the part where I said that every woman who wanted to be married could be married and have children. In the mid 1800’s in America there were very few vocations where women were allowed to work. Unmarried women who were on their own had the chance to work as teachers and seamstresses and laundry workers. Those who could not find work very often ended up as prostitutes. At the height of Mormon polygamous practice in the 1860’s there were over 50,000 licensed prostitutes in New York City alone. That’s when there weren’t even 50,000 Mormons. What represented more of a danger to the morals of America–2,000 Mormon men who took wives and raised children with them and provided homes and schooling or hundreds of thousands of prostitutes–many of whom were forced into that debauchery because they weren’t allowed to work elsewhere?

An interesting feature of this federal prosecution is that the federal judge appointed by the President abandoned his wife in Washington and brought his mistress with him to Utah. She sat with him on the bench when he sentenced men to prison for polygamy.

I’ve gotten the distinct impression from watching and participating in various threads here over the past few months, that polygamy is a distinctive and necessary aspect of Mormon progression into the Celestial heavenlies.

Then you have a misunderstanding. The one revelation mentioning plural marriage stipulates that a man and a woman enter into exaltation. Polygamy is as necessary as circumcision (not at all.)

Isn’t it a Mormon teaching that there will be polygamous arrangements in the Celestial Kingdom with men having celestial sex with their “wives” and thereby creating new souls to be imbedded in human bodies on other worlds?

The only place I have ever heard the term “celestial sex” is from critics of Mormonism. Even Brigham Young taught that every person born on this earth is a son or daughter of one “heavenly mother.”

I can’t recall there being any women defenders, though. All men. I take this to be significant. …We know something about how Emma Smith felt about it, and other Mormon women whose remarks have been recorded and published.

Well perhaps that’s just due to your not having been around that much. While I don’t know for certain the feelings of my own grandmother (a second wife), indications from my father are that she was glad to be married. I have spoken to many of my aunts who were “plural wives” in fundamentalism. While they aren’t entirely representative of Mormon polygamy, each of them staunchly supported and promoted the concept and entered into it as adult women. We really don’t know much first hand from Emma in how she felt about polygamy because it’s all filtered through her children. She made no public comment about it. However, we do have the statements of others such as Eliza Snow, Bathsheba Smith, Rhoda Richards and others who defended it.

Alma

 

[majick275]

I’m saying that polygamy isn’t a core doctrine. You don’t need to study it to be a faithful Mormon any more than you need to study circumcision.

then why is section 132 still canonized scripture? Come on, there is no getting around the LDs teachings that in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom all will be polygamous. the rest will be single.

Why should they? It isn’t a current doctrine any more than circumcision or animal sacrifice are.

bit of a difference. those covenants were replaced by the coming of Christ with the new covenant. the true fulfillment of all that doesn’t require any “higher” laws than what Jesus gave us.

Bruce R. McConkie stated: “Obviously the holy practice (of polygamy) will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.” (Mormon Doctine, 1966 edition).

You can try to claim this is irrelevant but the LDS teachings have been consistent and the current D&C speaks louder than anything to me. It IS LDS doctrine and thus polygamy IS still Doctrine, it just isn’t practiced…yet.

Eyewash. If we were worried about irritating the Christian world at large we wouldn’t send missionaries to Catholic or Baptist areas, we wouldn’t excommunicate people for heresy or adultery and we’d tell intellectuals that their behavior isn’t really important after all.

please. the marketing campaign is obvious. the changes in the church logo, the retitling of the BoM, the efforts to sidestep “controversial” doctrines on talk shows with GBH. Mormons try VERY hard as a church now to appear “Christian”. Before I left they retrofitted all the chapels with steeples to look more like other churches.

I don’t imagine you’ve discussed this matter with very many polygamists. I have, and know by personal experience that the women are more often proponents for polygamy than are their husbands.

and that makes it okay? do you really want to go down the path of consenting adults should be free to live however? Many Islamic women praised the Taliban too.

Mormon polygamy wasn’t entered into from the prospect of unlimited sex. Mormon men were about as reluctant to raise 5 families as today’s men are to raise one family. The commitment in time and money was absolutely daunting.

depends on the situation. wealthy men who were supported by the church and spent most of their time doing “church work” really weren’t that affected. The women in Utah polygamous families frequently earned the money through home industry and agriculture as well as raising the kids and taking care of the chores. It wasn’t much of a burden at all on many of the men.

You apparently missed the part where I said that every woman who wanted to be married could be married and have children. In the mid 1800’s in America there were very few vocations where women were allowed to work. Unmarried women who were on their own had the chance to work as teachers and seamstresses and laundry workers. Those who could not find work very often ended up as prostitutes. At the height of Mormon polygamous practice in the 1860’s there were over 50,000 licensed prostitutes in New York City alone. That’s when there weren’t even 50,000 Mormons. What represented more of a danger to the morals of America–2,000 Mormon men who took wives and raised children with them and provided homes and schooling or hundreds of thousands of prostitutes–many of whom were forced into that debauchery because they weren’t allowed to work elsewhere?

i think you make fast and loose with numerical facts here. polygamy stops prostitution? then why were there so many prostitutes in Utah during polygamy? I say the danger is in both. I don’t buy it as the lesser of two evils, especially when the Utah “wives” still had to earn a living in many homes.

 

[majick275]

continued

An interesting feature of this federal prosecution is that the federal judge appointed by the President abandoned his wife in Washington and brought his mistress with him to Utah. She sat with him on the bench when he sentenced men to prison for polygamy.

once again BOTH wrong.

Then you have a misunderstanding. The one revelation mentioning plural marriage stipulates that a man and a woman enter into exaltation. Polygamy is as necessary as circumcision (not at all.)

but it doesn’t say that anywhere in the D&C does it? in fact the section on having one wife was REMOVED and the one saying polygamy is good is still there.

In an 1884 general conference, President John Taylor asked for all monogamists serving in ward bishoprics or stake presidencies either make preparations to marry a plural wife or to offer their resignations to the church office. (Abraham H. Cannon Journal, April 6, 1884, Vol. I pp 177-8)

Joseph F. Smith said that at the marriage in Cana at Galilee, Jesus was the Bridegroom and Mary and Martha the brides. (Wilford Woodruff Journal, July 22, 1883)

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

The only place I have ever heard the term “celestial sex” is from critics of Mormonism. Even Brigham Young taught that every person born on this earth is a son or daughter of one “heavenly mother.”

where did he restrict it to ONE? There are many instances of him referring the the wives of heavenly father.

Well perhaps that’s just due to your not having been around that much. While I don’t know for certain the feelings of my own grandmother (a second wife), indications from my father are that she was glad to be married. I have spoken to many of my aunts who were “plural wives” in fundamentalism. While they aren’t entirely representative of Mormon polygamy, each of them staunchly supported and promoted the concept and entered into it as adult women. We really don’t know much first hand from Emma in how she felt about polygamy because it’s all filtered through her children. She made no public comment about it. However, we do have the statements of others such as Eliza Snow, Bathsheba Smith, Rhoda Richards and others who defended it.

Alma

I think Emma’s actions show her opposition to it. I think the D&C shows Joseph knew she opposed it.

 

[Alma147]

continued
once again BOTH wrong.

“The case of the “wife” was a greater outrage both to the government and the community than this indignant member of the Legislature knew at the time. Associate Justice Drummond had brought with him to the Territory a “lady companion,” while his wife and family were left in Illinois. After the notice of his arrival had been published in the Deseret News, some of the relatives of Mrs. Drummond paid a visit to the judge’s “companion,” and, unfortunately for the honor of the bench, the “lady” from St. Louis did not answer to the description of the wife in Oquawkee. The discovery was noised abroad, yet so shameless was the conduct of this judge and his paramour that she traveled with him wherever he held court, and on some occasions sat beside him on the bench.” (Tullidge, History of Salt Lake City, pp. 145-146)

 

[majick275]

I’m with you in condemning the judge and even with condemning the hypocrites that went along with it while speaking against polygamy bu I still say BOTH are wrong and sinful. Neither represents the marital structure that God gave the world.

 

[Allweather]

Polygamy was more of a club to beat up on Mormonism than anything else. The combined force of the US government was brought against the LDS Church.

Considering that institutionalized polygamy was, AFAIK, confined to the Mormons, and considering that ALL other Christian religions consider polygamy to be adulterous, and considering that the U.S. was overwhelmingly orthodox Christian during the 19th century, and considering that the U.S. government and state governments were generally representative of the people who elected them, this shouldn’t surprise anyone, least of all Mormons. Are you minimizing the effect that Mormon polygamy had on Americans? Polygamy wasn’t a “club to beat up on Mormons” it was a brazenly sinful, institutionalized practice that was thoroughly in-the-face of the American people.

Why should they? It isn’t a current doctrine any more than circumcision or animal sacrifice are.

I still cannot follow your comparison of circumcision to polygamy. Circumcision was never a sinful practice. It was a sign of covenant. Mormon polygamy was distinctly sinful according to Christian teachings, and has absolutely nothing to do with signifying a covenant.

If we were worried about irritating the Christian world at large we wouldn’t send missionaries to Catholic or Baptist areas

Different types of irritation, Alma. The missionaries don’t discuss polygamy, and according to accounts I’ve heard, when pressed to do so, offer up excuses that are nonsensical. The LDS of Salt Lake City are hard-bent to appear mainstream. Things like eternal progression and polygamy are not discussed. The emphasis is depicting Mormonism as all about family, all about clean living, stuff like that.

I… know by personal experience that the women are more often proponents for polygamy than are their husbands.

Yes, I saw a program about a Mormon man who had two wives, both of them had been his high school students, and the second one was 14 years his junior, already had born a couple of children to him by age 20. She seemed enthusiastic about the set-up. But that doesn’t make polygamy right. Some people think prostitution is AOK, but that doesn’t make it right. There is an objective Truth which declares certain things outside of acceptable morality, even when people think they’re AOK.

In the mid 1800’s in America there were very few vocations where women were allowed to work. Unmarried women who were on their own had the chance to work as teachers and seamstresses and laundry workers. Those who could not find work very often ended up as prostitutes.

And yet only the Mormons came up with polygamy as a “solution” to these “problems.” Somehow, the rest of Christian culture, in the U.S., the Americas, throughout Europe, and everywhere else, managed to hold to Christian morality rather than devise an immoral solution to problems that would have been better dealt with through other means. The same sort of faulty reasoning leads people today to have abortions, practice contraception, and many other sins that make life more “convenient.”

You say that Mormon polygamy is gone, and, as my fiance’s brother says, “isn’t important.” I strongly disagree. Polygamy, coming as it did from the founding Mormon prophet, continued and propagated by successor prophets, casts the Mormon religion in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus. This is why Mormons don’t like talking about it with their prospective converts, or anyone else, for that matter. They want to appear Christian, but this is very difficult to do while simultaneously defending Mormon polygamy.

 

[Alma147]

I’m finding it difficult to discuss things with you. You claim that Mormons don’t discuss polygamy because they feared irritating the Christian world at large. I responded by pointing out that we have other behavior that does irritate the Christian world at large—hence it’s not likely that we’re particularly concerned about whether we irritate them or not. Your response? “Different types of irritation.” I showed you that your assumption was invalid. Rather than agree that irritating the Christian world isn’t one of our concerns, you simply conclude that since it’s a different irritation it doesn’t count.

You do the same thing when you asked me to explain what useful purposes polygamy might have served. I explained that unmarried women in other societies were forced into prostitution which wasn’t the case during Mormon polygamy. In reply you say, And yet only the Mormons came up with polygamy as a ‘solution’ to these ‘problems.’” I didn’t suggest that it was devised to solve that problem, merely that it did have some benefits.

You claimed that women don’t ever defend the practice of polygamy, that such was limited to men. I pointed out that polygamous women often defend it, and gave you examples that showed your position was false. You responded by saying, “But that doesn’t make it right.” I didn’t bring up the fact that women defend polygamy to try to show that it was right; I brought it up because you said it doesn’t occur.

You’re convinced that you know why Mormons don’t discuss polygamy and my personal experience shows that your conclusions aren’t correct. We don’t generally discuss polygamy because there is no need do so. Mormons don’t practice it and haven’t practiced it for over 100 years. Converts aren’t expected to embrace it anymore than Catholic converts should be expected to embrace Abraham’s polygamy. I will defend the previous practice by both Abraham and Joseph Smith as being biblical and as never having been condemned by Jesus or scripture. You have every right to condemn it as entirely sinful and contrary to God’s word, but that still remains merely your own opinion –unsupported by scripture.

Alma

 

[majick275]

I don’t see how you can say mormons don’t discuss it or aren’t required to accept in principle when section 132 IS still canonized scripture and thus IS binding doctrine. That makes appear to me at least as a doctrinal principle that is STILL in effect. It can’t be practiced without the permission of the president of the LDs church and that hasn’t been given in almost a hundred years. BUT… he still has that authority and it is STILL in effect in the celestial kingdom for all of the existing sealings including those that are still done in the case of men who outlive their wives and choose to remarry. It is STILL taught as something that will occur in the afterlife (if not in the millenium) to ensure that all worthy women who were not able to be sealed to a worthy man to have “eternal increase”. (unlimited offspring)

 

[majick275]

obvioulsy Alma we will disagree over the scriptural validity of polygamy as you see God actively encouraging it in the OT and creating a potential for it in the BoM.