Stephen168
New member
Muslims can have only four wives at a time but divorce is very easy for a man to get, so a Muslim could have many wives over a life time.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
why_me
Guest
You don’t know lds teachings if you think that Joseph Smith thought polygamy sinful. JS died a polygamist. He took many wives during the years 1841-1843. He never denied polygamy and the practice continued after his death. However, he was a reluctant polygamist.just a short (name removed by moderator)ut about the LDS Church and the polygamy:
I nearly became a LDS so I pretty well know their teachings.
In the beginning polygamy was allowed by Joseph Smith, later, however, JS got a relevation (according to Doctrine and Covenants) that polygamy is sinful and not the will of the Lord.
Apparently why me is not a LDS but in a mormonic sect (“the fundamentalists” i think they are called) who still have polygamy because they don’t accept parts of D&C.
Esdra
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
yet he lied about it for years…You don’t know lds teachings if you think that Joseph Smith thought polygamy sinful. JS died a polygamist. He took many wives during the years 1841-1843. He never denied polygamy and the practice continued after his death. However, he was a reluctant polygamist.
that was a pattern of his
T
twopekinguys
Guest
He also lied and practiced it for 10 years before the “revelation” became public.yet he lied about it for years…
that was a pattern of his
W
why_me
Guest
I have no reason to defend catholicism on this forum or on MD which is different from MAD. Why? I don’t see mormons attacking the catholic church on this forum and I don’t see former mormons bashing the catholic church on MD. I have not been on MAD for quite some time and I have defended the catholic church on MAD, especially when our own SirThomasMore was bashing catholics on MAD before he reconverted to the catholic church.In a way he is defending Mormonism (as always, though never Catholicism) by defending this loathsome practice of theirs. He knows it is a stumbling block (rightly so) to people considering Mormonism and so he justifies it.
By the way Why me people on MD are asking if you defend the Catholic Church with as much zeal as you do the LDS church. Apparently you have quite the reputation as a defender of Mormonism but you know I can’t find your defense of Catholicism anywhere could you give us an example?
On this forum, catholic attacks on the mormon church are quite extraordinary and full of speculation as fact and ad hocs galore. The lds church needs defending on this forum against all the innuendos and speculations.
And I do have a reputation for defending mormonism in certain internet circles. That is for sure and my defense of mormonism comes from knowledge and research of anti and pro lds sites and the ability to think my way through the hype and mud.
Polygamy is only a stumbling block for some mormons because they do not know the history of the polygamy in the lds church. And they have no idea of polygamy in the old testament and how the lord condoned it for certain people.
W
why_me
Guest
Actually he did not lie about it for years. But I must admit that in order to keep the peace and allow for the mormons to live in tranquility, he did not admit that polygamy was practiced. And when JS did want to make it somewhat public, the people of nauvoo said no because they were afraid for their lives. The mobs would have ransacked and killed many mormons and destroyed their property.yet he lied about it for years…
that was a pattern of his
Lying About Polygamy During the Nauvoo Era
The “lying” about polygamy that occurred in the Nauvoo period is partly related to this same civil disobedience. A real-life example is helpful. Suppose a Church member is living in Holland in the 1940s. Established laws command the deportation of all Jews to a grisly fate. A Church member might (as many brave Dutch did) decide that such a law has no moral force–indeed, it would be immoral to obey it. The Church member might further decide that he is morally bound to hide a family of Jews in his attic. One day, an SS team arrives, knocks at the door, and demands to know if the Church member knows of the whereabouts of any Jews.
The member has several choices:
- he can decide that “honesty” is the highest moral value, and reveal the location of his Jewish guests
- he can refuse to answer the question, by remaining silent
- he can declare that he is not willing to comply with the request, and will not answer the question
- he can lie to the German SS, and may also have to lie to his friends and neighbors to keep them from revealing the secret
Remember, someone who opts for civil disobedience must accept the risk of punishment. The Dutch who were caught harboring Jews suffered greatly for their integrity–but, they apparently considered the risk of that suffering to be worth retaining that integrity. One cannot complain if one’s deception of the civil authorities is found out and punished–that is the price of civil disobedience on moral grounds. But, one is not morally obligated to participate in the prosecution of oneself or others for breaking laws one considers immoral.
An analogy to modern Church practice may illustrate some of the difficulties. Let us presume that current members of the Church have made covenants in the temple–but, not only do they covenant not to disclose certain concepts, but they promise not to disclose even the existence of the temple endowment itself. What would a Church member do if confronted publicly by an apostate with questions about matters they have promised to keep secret? Silence or a decision to “plead the Fifth” will simply play into their enemies’ hands by effectively confirming the story that the member will not deny. They cannot remain true to their covenants if they answer in the affirmative; to deny what the apostate is saying is to be deceptive.
It was in exactly this position that some Nauvoo-era members of the Church were placed. They had no ideal choices, and so did their best to follow God despite circumstances beyond their control.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Why Me… I would believe that there anti-LDS webpages that smear Mormonism. I look back on the posts here and alot of them are speaking correctly. I don’t think it right to be uncharitable, but they are speaking tongue-in-cheek regarding the inconsistencies.
You say J Smith was relunctant…but to have that many, I would rather say he was active. I have that perception because Christianity has never taught polygamy for 2,000 years and never will, because the message of Jesus is different than that being taught in Mormonism.
I respect the good Mormons do…their principles and work ethics… it is their tenants.
You say J Smith was relunctant…but to have that many, I would rather say he was active. I have that perception because Christianity has never taught polygamy for 2,000 years and never will, because the message of Jesus is different than that being taught in Mormonism.
I respect the good Mormons do…their principles and work ethics… it is their tenants.
W
why_me
Guest
Didn’t Joseph Deceive Church Members?
Some are quick to point out that Joseph Smith didn’t just lie to the government or to non-members, but also deceived members of the Church. This objection ignores, of course, the point that to make the announcement publicly to the Church is the same as telling everyone.
The accusation also omits some vital information. Joseph was not trying to simply act as he pleased and keep everyone else in the dark. He was anxious to teach the principle of plural marriage to any who would accept it; Church leaders such as Hyrum Smith and the Twelve were introduced to it. This is strange behavior for a deceiver, since each of these high Church leaders was in a position to denounce and ruin him. (Joseph had ample experience with such scenarios given the earlier departure of such key figures as the Three Witnesses, and many of the original Twelve Apostles during the Kirtland-era apostasy.) One source reports that over one hundred adults were taught the doctrine in Nauvoo before Joseph’s murder.44
Wouldn’t it be better to simply keep quiet about polygamy if Joseph was just a libidinous leader? Joseph persisted, however, in trying to introduce others to “the Principle.” He did make some efforts to teach plural marriage publicly–he seemed willing to accept the risk from non-members if the Church would support him. Heber C. Kimball wrote, in 1882:
On a certain Sabbath morning, previous to the return of the Apostles from Europe, in 1841, [Joseph] astonished his hearers by preaching on the restoration of all things, and said that as it was anciently with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so it would be again, etc.45
A contemporary journal describes the reaction:
When the prophet “went to his dinner,” [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, “as it might be expected several of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet’s house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a people.” So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according to Robinson, and said "Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said."46
Robinson feels that this reaction was not unexpected; yet, Joseph tried anyway. Note that Joseph does not come back in the afternoon and deny the doctrine; he merely withdraws it from public consideration. Upon the return of the Twelve, he would begin teaching it to them. Heber also recounted the negative reaction of Emma and others:
He spoke so plainly that his wife, Emma, as well as others were quite excited over it. Seeing the effect his sermon had upon them, he consoled them in the afternoon by saying that the time of which he had spoken might be further off than he anticipated.47
George A. Smith alluded to the same or a similar episode based upon records of those present:
The Prophet goes up on the stand, and, after preaching about everything else he could think of in the world, at last hints at the idea of the law of redemption, makes a bare hint at the law of sealing, and it produced such a tremendous excitement that, as soon as he had got his dinner half eaten, he had to go back to the stand, and unpreach all that he had preached, and left the people to guess at the matter. While he was thus preaching he turned to the men sitting in the stand, and who were the men who should have backed him up, for instance, to our good old President Marks, William and Wilson Law, and father Cowles, and a number of other individuals about Nauvoo, for this occurred when the Twelve were in the Eastern portions of the United States, and said, "If I were to reveal the things that God has revealed to me, if I were to reveal to this people the doctrines that I know are for their exaltation, these men would spill my blood."48
Joseph considered the doctrine essential for the Church,49 and it would seem that he offered the Church members at least one public opportunity to hear about plural marriage, but they refused it. So, Joseph continued to teach the doctrine, but in private. Are other more faithful members to be forbidden knowledge which some refused to receive?
In the last years of his life, Joseph repeatedly bemoaned the fact that all the members would not accept that which he wanted to teach. He warned, from Liberty Jail in 1839, "where is the man who is authorized to put his finger on the spot and say, thus far thou shalt go and no farther: there is no man. Therefore let us receive the whole, or none."50 Wilford Woodruff quoted Joseph in 1841:
“Some say Joseph is a fallen Prophet because he does not bring forth more of the word of the Lord,” he acknowledged in a December 1841 meeting with the Twelve. “Why does he not?” he then asked. "Are we able to receive it? No (says he) not one in this room."51
Joseph noted in 1843 that "many seal up the door of heaven by saying so far God may reveal and I will believe but no further."52
These factors add a new moral wrinkle to the issue: what is a prophet to do if the majority of people are not yet ready to accept a teaching? Should he announce it publicly anyway, risking the wrath of violent opponents who will seek to prevent him from teaching anything at all? Should he teach nothing, and allow the less-faithful to decide that the more-faithful may not enjoy revelation from God? Or, should he opt for Joseph’s approach–keep the doctrine private, and introduce it as people will accept it?
Some are quick to point out that Joseph Smith didn’t just lie to the government or to non-members, but also deceived members of the Church. This objection ignores, of course, the point that to make the announcement publicly to the Church is the same as telling everyone.
The accusation also omits some vital information. Joseph was not trying to simply act as he pleased and keep everyone else in the dark. He was anxious to teach the principle of plural marriage to any who would accept it; Church leaders such as Hyrum Smith and the Twelve were introduced to it. This is strange behavior for a deceiver, since each of these high Church leaders was in a position to denounce and ruin him. (Joseph had ample experience with such scenarios given the earlier departure of such key figures as the Three Witnesses, and many of the original Twelve Apostles during the Kirtland-era apostasy.) One source reports that over one hundred adults were taught the doctrine in Nauvoo before Joseph’s murder.44
Wouldn’t it be better to simply keep quiet about polygamy if Joseph was just a libidinous leader? Joseph persisted, however, in trying to introduce others to “the Principle.” He did make some efforts to teach plural marriage publicly–he seemed willing to accept the risk from non-members if the Church would support him. Heber C. Kimball wrote, in 1882:
On a certain Sabbath morning, previous to the return of the Apostles from Europe, in 1841, [Joseph] astonished his hearers by preaching on the restoration of all things, and said that as it was anciently with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so it would be again, etc.45
A contemporary journal describes the reaction:
When the prophet “went to his dinner,” [Joseph Lee] Robinson wrote, “as it might be expected several of the first women of the church collected at the Prophet’s house with his wife [and] said thus to the prophet Joseph O mister Smith you have done it now it will never do it is all but Blassphemy you must take back what you have said to day is it is outrageous it would ruin us as a people.” So in the afternoon session Smith again took the stand, according to Robinson, and said "Brethren and Sisters I take back what we said this morning and leave it as though there had been nothing said."46
Robinson feels that this reaction was not unexpected; yet, Joseph tried anyway. Note that Joseph does not come back in the afternoon and deny the doctrine; he merely withdraws it from public consideration. Upon the return of the Twelve, he would begin teaching it to them. Heber also recounted the negative reaction of Emma and others:
He spoke so plainly that his wife, Emma, as well as others were quite excited over it. Seeing the effect his sermon had upon them, he consoled them in the afternoon by saying that the time of which he had spoken might be further off than he anticipated.47
George A. Smith alluded to the same or a similar episode based upon records of those present:
The Prophet goes up on the stand, and, after preaching about everything else he could think of in the world, at last hints at the idea of the law of redemption, makes a bare hint at the law of sealing, and it produced such a tremendous excitement that, as soon as he had got his dinner half eaten, he had to go back to the stand, and unpreach all that he had preached, and left the people to guess at the matter. While he was thus preaching he turned to the men sitting in the stand, and who were the men who should have backed him up, for instance, to our good old President Marks, William and Wilson Law, and father Cowles, and a number of other individuals about Nauvoo, for this occurred when the Twelve were in the Eastern portions of the United States, and said, "If I were to reveal the things that God has revealed to me, if I were to reveal to this people the doctrines that I know are for their exaltation, these men would spill my blood."48
Joseph considered the doctrine essential for the Church,49 and it would seem that he offered the Church members at least one public opportunity to hear about plural marriage, but they refused it. So, Joseph continued to teach the doctrine, but in private. Are other more faithful members to be forbidden knowledge which some refused to receive?
In the last years of his life, Joseph repeatedly bemoaned the fact that all the members would not accept that which he wanted to teach. He warned, from Liberty Jail in 1839, "where is the man who is authorized to put his finger on the spot and say, thus far thou shalt go and no farther: there is no man. Therefore let us receive the whole, or none."50 Wilford Woodruff quoted Joseph in 1841:
“Some say Joseph is a fallen Prophet because he does not bring forth more of the word of the Lord,” he acknowledged in a December 1841 meeting with the Twelve. “Why does he not?” he then asked. "Are we able to receive it? No (says he) not one in this room."51
Joseph noted in 1843 that "many seal up the door of heaven by saying so far God may reveal and I will believe but no further."52
These factors add a new moral wrinkle to the issue: what is a prophet to do if the majority of people are not yet ready to accept a teaching? Should he announce it publicly anyway, risking the wrath of violent opponents who will seek to prevent him from teaching anything at all? Should he teach nothing, and allow the less-faithful to decide that the more-faithful may not enjoy revelation from God? Or, should he opt for Joseph’s approach–keep the doctrine private, and introduce it as people will accept it?
W
why_me
Guest
Critics who refuse to believe in modern prophets will find such a question pointless. But, if we give Joseph the benefit of the doubt before condemning him, this is an issue which we must confront.
As George A. Smith indicated, it is a problem with no neat, pat solution. Of the Kirtland Temple period, which he then applied by analogy to apostate William Law and polygamy, Smith said:
If the Lord had on that occasion revealed one single sentiment more, or went one step further to reveal more fully the law of redemption, I believe He would have upset the whole of us. The fact was, He dare not, on that very account, reveal to us a single principle further than He had done, for He had tried, over and over again, to do it… He was determined this time to be so careful, and advance the idea so slowly, to communicate them to the children of men with such great caution that, at all hazards, a few of them might be able to understand and obey.53
Secrecy, Polygamy, and Threats of Violence against the Saints
One prominent source on Mormon polygamy indicates that secrecy was the only feasible tactic for establishing polygamy in the nineteenth-century American west. Richard Van Wagoner notes both the illegality of polygamous marriage and the social opposition to it:
Polygamy, a criminal act under the 1833 Illinois Anti-bigamy Laws, was so unacceptable to monogamous nineteenth-century American society that Joseph could introduce it only in absolute secrecy.54
The civil disobedience perspective is again important, but the extreme taboo of polygamy to Joseph’s contemporaries–understandable given the Victorian sensibilities of nineteenth-century America–points to another difficulty which we have not yet considered.
Emma Smith (no fan of polygamy) insisted that Joseph and Hyrum’s murder was due to polygamy.55 Even so, Emma’s assertion must be taken with a grain of salt–her opposition to polygamy later led her to deny that her husband had ever practiced it at all, which makes it difficult for plural marriage to have been the cause of his murder, as she initially claimed.56 Yet, there can be no doubt that Joseph knew that he risked his life–and lives of his followers–in preaching or practicing polygamy. Sarah M. Kimball recalled Joseph’s attitude in 1842:
"He [Joseph] said in teaching this [polygamy] he realized that he jeopardized his life; but God had revealed it to him many years before as a privilege with a blessing, now God had revealed it again and instructed him to teach it with commandment as the Church could travel (progress) no farther without the introduction of this principle."57
As George A. Smith indicated, it is a problem with no neat, pat solution. Of the Kirtland Temple period, which he then applied by analogy to apostate William Law and polygamy, Smith said:
If the Lord had on that occasion revealed one single sentiment more, or went one step further to reveal more fully the law of redemption, I believe He would have upset the whole of us. The fact was, He dare not, on that very account, reveal to us a single principle further than He had done, for He had tried, over and over again, to do it… He was determined this time to be so careful, and advance the idea so slowly, to communicate them to the children of men with such great caution that, at all hazards, a few of them might be able to understand and obey.53
Secrecy, Polygamy, and Threats of Violence against the Saints
One prominent source on Mormon polygamy indicates that secrecy was the only feasible tactic for establishing polygamy in the nineteenth-century American west. Richard Van Wagoner notes both the illegality of polygamous marriage and the social opposition to it:
Polygamy, a criminal act under the 1833 Illinois Anti-bigamy Laws, was so unacceptable to monogamous nineteenth-century American society that Joseph could introduce it only in absolute secrecy.54
The civil disobedience perspective is again important, but the extreme taboo of polygamy to Joseph’s contemporaries–understandable given the Victorian sensibilities of nineteenth-century America–points to another difficulty which we have not yet considered.
Emma Smith (no fan of polygamy) insisted that Joseph and Hyrum’s murder was due to polygamy.55 Even so, Emma’s assertion must be taken with a grain of salt–her opposition to polygamy later led her to deny that her husband had ever practiced it at all, which makes it difficult for plural marriage to have been the cause of his murder, as she initially claimed.56 Yet, there can be no doubt that Joseph knew that he risked his life–and lives of his followers–in preaching or practicing polygamy. Sarah M. Kimball recalled Joseph’s attitude in 1842:
"He [Joseph] said in teaching this [polygamy] he realized that he jeopardized his life; but God had revealed it to him many years before as a privilege with a blessing, now God had revealed it again and instructed him to teach it with commandment as the Church could travel (progress) no farther without the introduction of this principle."57
W
why_me
Guest
**Louisa Beaman likewise reported that Joseph said, "In revealing this to you, I have placed my life in your hands, therefore do not in an evil hour betray me to my enemies."58 Jane Richards recalled that Joseph’s revelation on plural marriage “should [be]…without publicity at this time,” since "mob spirit was already quite excited."59
**
Polygamy certainly did not cause all the persecution which the Saints endured at Nauvoo. As Wilford Woodruff noted, they had suffered persecution before polygamy was an issue at all:
“Why,” says the world, “you profess to believe in polygamy, and that is why you are persecuted.” No, you are mistaken about that. The worst persecution this Church ever endured was before polygamy was revealed to the Church. We have had more prosperity since we carried out that law, and endeavored to fulfill it according to the command of God, than we ever had as a people before.60
This was not mere wishful thinking on Wilford Woodruff’s part. In 1877, J.H. Beadle, participant in the publication of much anti-Mormon material during the Utah period,61 wrote:
the Mormons had more trouble with the world before they adopted polygamy than since…Polygamy will do for a scapegoat, but the trouble is far more radical than that.62
Despite this, polygamy did certainly help set off the powder-keg that was Nauvoo. When Hyrum Smith read the revelation on plural marriage to the Nauvoo stake presidency and high council, William Marks, Austin Cowles, and Leonard Sobey refused to support it.63 William Law, his brother Wilson, and others used the Nauvoo Expositor issue of 7 June 1844 to detail Joseph’s polygamous practices, and to charge him with various crimes, labeling him a "blood thirsty and murderous…demon…in human shape"64 and "a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history… one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."65
The Nauvoo city council’s decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day,66 worsened a tense situation, and led directly to Joseph’s surrender, incarceration, and murder.67 Orson Hyde looked back on the Nauvoo days and indicated what the consequences of disclosure would have been:
In olden times they might have passed through the same circumstances as some of the Latter-day Saints had to in Illinois. What would it have done for us, if they had known that many of us had more than one wife when we lived in Illinois? They would have broken us up, doubtless, worse than they did.68
It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy–or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy–was simply not a feasible plan. There is a moral obligation to avoid death and suffering, and Joseph’s decision to hide polygamy from the public likely avoided precipitating violence that would have claimed some of his followers and the non-members in Illinois.
**
Polygamy certainly did not cause all the persecution which the Saints endured at Nauvoo. As Wilford Woodruff noted, they had suffered persecution before polygamy was an issue at all:
“Why,” says the world, “you profess to believe in polygamy, and that is why you are persecuted.” No, you are mistaken about that. The worst persecution this Church ever endured was before polygamy was revealed to the Church. We have had more prosperity since we carried out that law, and endeavored to fulfill it according to the command of God, than we ever had as a people before.60
This was not mere wishful thinking on Wilford Woodruff’s part. In 1877, J.H. Beadle, participant in the publication of much anti-Mormon material during the Utah period,61 wrote:
the Mormons had more trouble with the world before they adopted polygamy than since…Polygamy will do for a scapegoat, but the trouble is far more radical than that.62
Despite this, polygamy did certainly help set off the powder-keg that was Nauvoo. When Hyrum Smith read the revelation on plural marriage to the Nauvoo stake presidency and high council, William Marks, Austin Cowles, and Leonard Sobey refused to support it.63 William Law, his brother Wilson, and others used the Nauvoo Expositor issue of 7 June 1844 to detail Joseph’s polygamous practices, and to charge him with various crimes, labeling him a "blood thirsty and murderous…demon…in human shape"64 and "a sycophant, whose attempt for power find no parallel in history… one of the blackest and basest scoundrels that has appeared upon the stage of human existence since the days of Nero, and Caligula."65
The Nauvoo city council’s decision to suppress the Expositor, while legal for the day,66 worsened a tense situation, and led directly to Joseph’s surrender, incarceration, and murder.67 Orson Hyde looked back on the Nauvoo days and indicated what the consequences of disclosure would have been:
In olden times they might have passed through the same circumstances as some of the Latter-day Saints had to in Illinois. What would it have done for us, if they had known that many of us had more than one wife when we lived in Illinois? They would have broken us up, doubtless, worse than they did.68
It is thus important to realize that the public preaching of polygamy–or announcing it to the general Church membership, thereby informing the public by proxy–was simply not a feasible plan. There is a moral obligation to avoid death and suffering, and Joseph’s decision to hide polygamy from the public likely avoided precipitating violence that would have claimed some of his followers and the non-members in Illinois.
E
Esdra
Guest
Sorry my mistake… However there is a revelation that polygamy is sinful in D&C 49:16You don’t know lds teachings if you think that Joseph Smith thought polygamy sinful. JS died a polygamist. He took many wives during the years 1841-1843. He never denied polygamy and the practice continued after his death. However, he was a reluctant polygamist.
" 16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; "
and
D&C 42:22 also speakes only about ONE WIFE:
" 22 Thou shalt alove thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt bcleave unto her and none else. "
Interesting, I think I didn’t read the Mormon Scriptures that thoroughly than I had thought. Just today I realized that nearly everywhere is spoken about wives - not wife. Mormonism was really a polygamy religion.
Except the two verses out of D&C above.
Esdra
W
why_me
Guest
Lying and Biblical Prophets
In any discussion of polygamy during the Nauvoo period–particularly as it relates to the secrecy and purported lies that surround its introduction–questions inevitably turn toward the biblical record. Critics often indicate that biblical prophets were never called upon to engage in lying or to make public statements at odds with private behavior.
LDS authors often cite the examples of Abraham69 and Isaac,70 both of whom deceived others about their marital status for their own protection, as biblical precedent for polygamy and its deceptions. There are, however, examples recorded in Exodus that are more on-point to the situation in Nauvoo.
The first is an example of civil disobedience sanctioned by God. It involves Pharaoh’s murderous instructions to the Egyptian midwives:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?
19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.71
The midwives are confronted with a command from the head of state which offends their personal/professional morality. They decline to participate, and actively deceive the Pharaoh–they even lie to him or his officers so that the deception may continue, as well as to (one assumes) spare themselves his punishment. The subsequent verses indicate God’s approval of their action–honesty is not the primary moral value: obedience to the will of God is.
The second example comes from the prophetic call of Moses. The Lord speaks to Moses and says:
17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.72
The Lord announces His intention to liberate the Israelites from slavery. But, in the very next breath, He tells Moses what to tell Pharaoh–what the “public story” should be, if you will:
18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.73
The “public stance” of Moses and the Israelite leaders is to be that they only want to go three days’ journey to sacrifice. So, here the Lord is advocating some degree of deception. This extends to even deceiving their Egyptian neighbors:
21 And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:
22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.74
Because they are just going to make sacrifices, in the public version, the Israelites are to “borrow” valuable goods from the Egyptians. But, the true intent is clearly spelled out: they are to “spoil” (i.e. “loot”) the Egyptians.75
Things proceed to the point that Pharaoh threatens Moses’ life despite the plagues and signs.77 The people are finally freed, but once they have left Pharaoh and his councilors decide to resort to violence and slaughter:
5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?
6 And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him:
7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them.
8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.78
We are not told why the Lord instructed Moses to deal with the Egyptians in the way that he did. It is significant that Moses did not take such an approach on his own; only a direct command motivates his less-than-forthright behavior.
One can speculate, however–it is certainly reasonable to think that the Egyptians would have murderous intent toward their slaves who presumed to leave. They are willing to act on such inclinations, despite the plagues, when it becomes indisputable that Israel has left for good. If Moses had announced that Israel was leaving, what would the reaction of Pharaoh’s court have been? Moses’ failure to tell the whole story may well have saved Egyptian life, as well as Israelite. To be sure, God could have used another way. But, in this instance, deception was the specific tactic which He commanded.
But, all these attacks–like the attacks on Joseph–beg the question. They presume at the outset that Moses is not a prophet. The highest duty for a prophet–or anyone–is to obey the word of the Lord.
fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html
I think that the link makes a good case for any catholic who wishes to read it.
In any discussion of polygamy during the Nauvoo period–particularly as it relates to the secrecy and purported lies that surround its introduction–questions inevitably turn toward the biblical record. Critics often indicate that biblical prophets were never called upon to engage in lying or to make public statements at odds with private behavior.
LDS authors often cite the examples of Abraham69 and Isaac,70 both of whom deceived others about their marital status for their own protection, as biblical precedent for polygamy and its deceptions. There are, however, examples recorded in Exodus that are more on-point to the situation in Nauvoo.
The first is an example of civil disobedience sanctioned by God. It involves Pharaoh’s murderous instructions to the Egyptian midwives:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?
19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.71
The midwives are confronted with a command from the head of state which offends their personal/professional morality. They decline to participate, and actively deceive the Pharaoh–they even lie to him or his officers so that the deception may continue, as well as to (one assumes) spare themselves his punishment. The subsequent verses indicate God’s approval of their action–honesty is not the primary moral value: obedience to the will of God is.
The second example comes from the prophetic call of Moses. The Lord speaks to Moses and says:
17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.72
The Lord announces His intention to liberate the Israelites from slavery. But, in the very next breath, He tells Moses what to tell Pharaoh–what the “public story” should be, if you will:
18 And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.73
The “public stance” of Moses and the Israelite leaders is to be that they only want to go three days’ journey to sacrifice. So, here the Lord is advocating some degree of deception. This extends to even deceiving their Egyptian neighbors:
21 And I will give this people favour in the sight of the Egyptians: and it shall come to pass, that, when ye go, ye shall not go empty:
22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.74
Because they are just going to make sacrifices, in the public version, the Israelites are to “borrow” valuable goods from the Egyptians. But, the true intent is clearly spelled out: they are to “spoil” (i.e. “loot”) the Egyptians.75
Things proceed to the point that Pharaoh threatens Moses’ life despite the plagues and signs.77 The people are finally freed, but once they have left Pharaoh and his councilors decide to resort to violence and slaughter:
5 And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?
6 And he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him:
7 And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them.
8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel: and the children of Israel went out with an high hand.78
We are not told why the Lord instructed Moses to deal with the Egyptians in the way that he did. It is significant that Moses did not take such an approach on his own; only a direct command motivates his less-than-forthright behavior.
One can speculate, however–it is certainly reasonable to think that the Egyptians would have murderous intent toward their slaves who presumed to leave. They are willing to act on such inclinations, despite the plagues, when it becomes indisputable that Israel has left for good. If Moses had announced that Israel was leaving, what would the reaction of Pharaoh’s court have been? Moses’ failure to tell the whole story may well have saved Egyptian life, as well as Israelite. To be sure, God could have used another way. But, in this instance, deception was the specific tactic which He commanded.
But, all these attacks–like the attacks on Joseph–beg the question. They presume at the outset that Moses is not a prophet. The highest duty for a prophet–or anyone–is to obey the word of the Lord.
fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html
I think that the link makes a good case for any catholic who wishes to read it.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Actually he did not lie about it for years. But I must admit that in order to keep the peace and allow for the mormons to live in tranquility, he did not admit that polygamy was practiced.
He denied it. That was a lie.
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Apparently, it was God lying, sinnce Joe said he got it from GodSorry my mistake… However there is a revelation that polygamy is sinful in D&C 49:16
" 16 Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; "
and
D&C 42:22 also speakes only about ONE WIFE:
" 22 Thou shalt alove thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt bcleave unto her and none else. "
Interesting, I think I didn’t read the Mormon Scriptures that thoroughly than I had thought. Just today I realized that nearly everywhere is spoken about wives - not wife. Mormonism was really a polygamy religion.
Except the two verses out of D&C above.
Esdra
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
Lying and Biblical Prophets
In any discussion of polygamy during the Nauvoo period–particularly as it relates to the secrecy and purported lies that surround its introduction–questions inevitably turn toward the biblical record. Critics often indicate that biblical prophets were never called upon to engage in lying or to make public statements at odds with private behavior.
lol…you and the other Mormons have that red herring thing down to a science. Yes, let’s compare Abraham, who lied to protect his wife, with Joe, who lied to make money, gain power, and have lots of women. Makes perfect LDS sense. Why, you and the other Mormons need to try facing tyhe issues without deflecting in hopes of derailing
S
scipio337
Guest
Well, why not give the original source some credit?Lying and Biblical Prophets
…
fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Any Catholic can read those can see the deception, then and now.
Moses was leading people out of captivity, not leading them into an adulteress practice. See the difference? (There’s always hope.) One is God’s Mercy, the other is a frog in boiling water.
Joe tested out his adultery as god divine law with a small group first. It was only revealed to everyone when the Expositor outed him. Seems the test with the small group failed.
Moses was leading people out of captivity, not leading them into an adulteress practice. See the difference? (There’s always hope.) One is God’s Mercy, the other is a frog in boiling water.
Joe tested out his adultery as god divine law with a small group first. It was only revealed to everyone when the Expositor outed him. Seems the test with the small group failed.
S
scipio337
Guest
..
lol…you and the other Mormons have that red herring thing down to a science. Yes, let’s compare Abraham, who lied to protect his wife, with Joe, who lied to make money, gain power, and have lots of women. Makes perfect LDS sense. Why, you and the other Mormons need to try facing tyhe issues without deflecting in hopes of derailing
I would also point out this is ABRAM, not Abraham. Abram and Issac lied about their ONE wife, not to hide his MANY wives.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
why me;6752230:
Do you mean like this?Actually he did not lie about it for years. But I must admit that in order to keep the peace and allow for the mormons to live in tranquility, he did not admit that polygamy was practiced.
He denied it. That was a lie.
In 1843, Joseph Smith told the press that Mormons did not practice polygamy. But at the time Smith was already married to 12 women, taking a 17 year old orphan as his second wife back in 1835. (The Twenty-seventh Wife, Wallace, Irving, NY, Simon & Schuster, 1961)
W
why_me
Guest
Here is the deal Kathleen. Joseph Smith was a very reluctant polygamist. He began to marry women with zeal in the nauvoo period. Before that time, he had to my knowledge one plural wife and that was fanny alger. I am not sure about a second one after that. But in Nauvoo he began to marry many women. Why? Certainly not because he got a little frisky. These mormon women were not stupid. They would have spotted a con a mile away. He geniunely felt that god wanted him to practice polygamy and he, JS, put it off for too long. And so, he began to ask women to be sealed to him for a period of two years.Why Me… I would believe that there anti-LDS webpages that smear Mormonism. I look back on the posts here and alot of them are speaking correctly. I don’t think it right to be uncharitable, but they are speaking tongue-in-cheek regarding the inconsistencies.
You say J Smith was relunctant…but to have that many, I would rather say he was active. I have that perception because Christianity has never taught polygamy for 2,000 years and never will, because the message of Jesus is different than that being taught in Mormonism.
I respect the good Mormons do…their principles and work ethics… it is their tenants.
Now mormon critics love to point out that JS lied about it. But that is not exactly true and again, the critics lack context. My link points out that the people in nauvoo were geniunely fearful for their lives if the secret of polygamy came out. Here is an example from what I posted:
Louisa Beaman likewise reported that Joseph said, "In revealing this to you, I have placed my life in your hands, therefore do not in an evil hour betray me to my enemies."58 Jane Richards recalled that Joseph’s revelation on plural marriage “should [be]…without publicity at this time,” since "mob spirit was already quite excited."59
And there are plenty of other quotations from nauvoo members backing up what I said. And joseph knew that when he began to practice polygamy in nauvoo that his life was in the hands of the women he was sealed to. But he felt that he had to do it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.