Does the Lord condone polygamy?

[SirThomasMore]

]I have? Where have I been taken to the woodshed.

here

First, I proved that the lord

appropriate you did not say “Lord”…the CoLDS does not worship the Biublical Lord

of the OT condoned of polygamy and in fact, encouraged it through rewarding of wives.

Second, I have proven that the women who were sealed to JS who were reluctant about the practice, prayed about it, received heavenly visitations of its truthfulness and only then, agreed to be sealed to Joseph Smith.

Wrong. You just showed how Joe bullied women to be a part of his harem

 

[why_me]

Seems more like a church to satisfy Smith’s lust. Even Brodie says this. Smith took power, sex, family, learning, and expanded it to the next life and enlarged it all. Continuous learning, a star for each to be the king of, more than one wife, sex (apparently lots of it). I wonder what Smith would have dreamed up if he had lived five more years.

Oh my gosh…Brodie said it? I can’t believe it…did she really say that…it must be true then. Yes, Smith was lusty…yes…he was…and lots of sex too? Amazing…truly amazing.

And yet, the women were silent about the lust and received heavenly visitations about the truthfulness of the principle after they prayed about it…but you claim it was lust…well. you must be right…

 

[SirThomasMore]

If the people of nauvoo asked him not to reveal it, he didn’t. To reveal it would have meant death and destruction by the mobs who were thirsting for mormon blood. Unfortunately, polygamy was against the law and by practicing polygamy the mormon were engaged in civil disobedience. However, if america was then the land of the free and the home of the brave, nothing would have been put under the rug.

so…he lied. But then, we know he was a liar…all his friends said so

 

[SirThomasMore]

Oh my gosh…Brodie said it? I can’t believe it…did she really say that…it must be true then. Yes, Smith was lusty…yes…he was…and lots of sex too? Amazing…truly amazing.

And yet, the women were silent about the lust and received heavenly visitations about the truthfulness of the principle after they prayed about it…but you claim it was lust…well. you must be right…

maybe the people of Nauvoo asked them to be silent about it

 

[why_me]

Wrong. You just showed how Joe bullied women to be a part of his harem

If you say so tom. You must be right.

So the lord of the OT testament agreed to condone polygamy 6,000 years ago. But in the 1800’s he wouldn’t condone it…I guess that makes sense.

 

[why_me]

maybe the people of Nauvoo asked them to be silent about it

Actually the people of nauvoo asked Joseph to be silent about the practice of polygamy for fear the mobs would come and burn the town. And so he was to the point of denying the practice. Then, came the Nauvoo expositor attempting to publicize polygamy. The towns people were fearful and the town council voted to shut it down. So, you were close in your opinion.

 

[PaulDupre]

why me:

And yet, the women were silent about the lust and received heavenly visitations about the truthfulness of the principle after they prayed about it…

The accounts I’ve read, including this heart-wrenching one from 14 year-old Helen Mar Kimball, sound more like Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Returning_Home]

Simply put, Zina “did not merely bow to Smith’s pressure; she obtained her own testimony of polygamy by scripture study…and by personal revelation.”[2]
Benjamin Johnson

Joseph approached Benjamin Johnson for permission to marry his sisters, Delcena and Almera. If Joseph’s intentions were dishonorable, this seems a foolhardy thing to do.

What you failed to mention here that, marrying sisters, Joseph Smith spit in Moses’ face when he made it clear that this was not to happen. He would later disobey the command that a man was not to marry both a mother and daughter. (Lev. 18:17-18 and 20:14)

How does one do the will of God by disobeying God?

 

[Returning_Home]

Actually the people of nauvoo asked Joseph to be silent about the practice of polygamy for fear the mobs would come and burn the town. And so he was to the point of denying the practice. Then, came the Nauvoo expositor attempting to publicize polygamy. The towns people were fearful and the town council voted to shut it down. So, you were close in your opinion.

This is not true whatsoever; Smith always and consistantly denied polygamy during his lifetime. Keep in mind that D&C 132 wasn’t published until 1876, 32 years after Smith’s death. There was also likely the fact that Smith wanted to keep his hide from being tarred and feathered again, giving him more incentive to keep lying about the matter.

Have you ever read the Nauvoo Expositior’s only issue? I saw nothing in it that was incorrect and the fact that Smith ordered it destroyed lead directly to his murder.

 

[Returning_Home]

If you say so tom. You must be right.

So the lord of the OT testament agreed to condone polygamy 6,000 years ago. But in the 1800’s he wouldn’t condone it…I guess that makes sense.

Not simply because he says so, but rather because it fits the pattern of Smith’s behavior, established when he threatened Emma with “destruction” if she didn’t shut up and get on board with the program.

 

[PaulDupre]

Not simply because he says so, but rather because it fits the pattern of Smith’s behavior, established when he threatened Emma with “destruction” if she didn’t shut up and get on board with the program.

In other words, Joseph made her an offer she couldn’t refuse.

 

[Returning_Home]

In other words, Joseph made her an offer she couldn’t refuse.

Or at least didn’t want to take the chance of ignoring…

 

[TikiTokiguy]

Not simply because he says so, but rather because it fits the pattern of Smith’s behavior, established when he threatened Emma with “destruction” if she didn’t shut up and get on board with the program.

True. When I read about that it was just another pathetic piece of evidence condemning Smith. It was either my last time at LDS services or my second to last time when I seen a young man, in his twenties, get up and testify with a big smile - “I just moved here from Utah and guess what? I found out that I’m related to Joseph Smith! My great great great great great grand mom was a cousin! I’m related to Joseph Smith!”

He said it like he hit the lottery. Later in the Elders Quorum he stood up and said “I’m new here from Utah and when I found out you have to be married to be exulted, well I’m here to get married to my girl!” Ugh. When I heard him say that I thought to myself again someone is not right about this “church.” This Smith worship is just not right.

 

[why_me]

This is not true whatsoever; Smith always and consistantly denied polygamy during his lifetime. Keep in mind that D&C 132 wasn’t published until 1876, 32 years after Smith’s death. There was also likely the fact that Smith wanted to keep his hide from being tarred and feathered again, giving him more incentive to keep lying about the matter.

He did? But what about this:

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

fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html

 

[Returning_Home]

I came across this fact in the May 2009 issue of the Salt Lake City Messenger (“Sacred Marriage or Secret Affair?”). Thank God Almighty for the Tanners, they are truly doing the Lord’s work (rest in peace, Jerald).

 

[why_me]

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?

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

fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html

 

[why_me]

Really, I just provided eyewitness accounts of the towns people asking JS to be quiet about Polygamy.

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

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."

fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.html

 

[why_me]

A former mormon catholic was misinformed about the secrecy of polygamy. It was no secret at all as I just proved. That was my point. Now of course, I don’t expect the former mormon catholic to change their mind. In fact, they will stick to their viewpoint. But the truth is out there for all to read. It was no secret.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Joe was a man who soimply wanted women…power,.,…money…

he was no prophet.

 

[mark_a]

I find it revealing that post-Jesus so-called prophets (Muhammed, Smith, Koresh, Jones, etc.) allow themselves the perks of, among other sexual liberties, at least a few extra women.