Mormon/Polygamy question

[Mapi]

Ok everyone, here are my thoughts.

I join the church (mormon) many years ago and, I end up leaving mostly because polygamy. As a woman and a daughter of God, I had a very hard time understanding how can my heavenly father who loves me sooooo much will want that kind of life for me or any other of his daughters. The more I thought about it, the sicker it made me. I finally pray about it a lot!!! And finally, the Lord told me that polygamy was just wrong and so many other things that the church teaches as well and, told me to get out of there and go back to CC. Just reading some of these posts make me sick.

Also, the mormon church in a way still practices polygamy in the temple. For example, if a man marries and his wife later dies, he can get seal in the temple to a second wife, so in the after life he will have 2 wives, but if a woman marries and later her husband dies, she can’t not seal to another man!!! So at the end, polygamy in away still in practice by the mormon church!

 

[Allweather]

Hi, Mapi, and welcome. Your story sounds very similar to my fiance’s. She knew almost nothing about the polygamy of the early Mormons. It was reading about Mormon polygamy that caused the lights to come on for her.

Frankly, I don’t think most men understand how this is for women. If the shoe were on the other foot, ie it was all about several husbands for a single woman, why, I’m willing to betcha that Mormon men wouldn’t think very highly of it. Men tend to like the idea of having many sex partners (I sure do!), or maybe a couple of sex partners combined with a few other women hanging around to do the laundry, and maybe a couple to go out and earn a living, so he can just sit around and be a fat patriarch. No one should be surprised that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young developed their polygamy system. After all, they had almost unlimited power over people, and if they wanted something to happen, all they had to do was get a revelation direct from Jesus or Heavenly Father, and bingo, it was a done deal. They could look into the Old Testament and see some polygamy. The idea of a harem is something any natural man finds attractive. With no one to call them on it, they had their way.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Mapi, it’s interesting how throughout this thread you’ve pointed out things about polygamy that current Mormons seem to omit. I didn’t know early Mormon prophets married women who already had husbands. What was the point of that? I also didn’t know celestial marriage involved polygamy. I’ll have to mention these things to the Mormon missionaries who visit me weekly.

Allweather, you have a very interesting perspective on things. I’ve often thought that historically women tend to settle for less than they should. Polygamy in early Mormon era and modern feminism are good examples of things women have accepted too easily. This acceptance illustrates for me how women specifically stand to gain so much from authentic Catholic teaching.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I doubt the LDS Church would allow polygamy today even if it were legal. It is legal in African countries but we don’t allow polygamists to be baptized (nor divorce current wives to qualify for baptism.)

Alma

If I understand this correctly, through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, God does not welcome some of his children who sin. Are they not allowed a chance to repent of their sins and be baptized? Have Mormons already pronounced these Africans lost? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood.

 

[Alma147]

OK, gotcha. Are we talking about the mechanics of Celestial Sex? Because, that’s not what I’m thinking of. I take it for granted that the mechanics of it might differ quite a lot from what we’re familiar with here on this planet. I’m thinking more in terms of the idea that men and women, exalted to the Celestial Kingdom, will be joining together, by whatever method yet to be revealed, to create spirit children, and that these spirits will then go on to inhabit bodies on other planets. Wouldn’t spirit children be the logical reason to have marriages and families in Celestial Kingdom? If that is correct, then the children are being produced, apparently through the agency of these exalted men and their wives, even though we don’t know the details of Celestial coitus.

Sorry for the absence–I had a minor disaster at the home that’s taken most of my time. When one says, “Celestial sex” I assume they’re expecting dictionary definitions. If you think I’ve been hesitant to agree that Mormons believe in the propagation of their species in the celestial kingdom, I do teach that and Mormons believe that is what is meant by continuation of the family. But most people who refer to “celestial sex” do so in an attempt to shock and add salaciousness that isn’t found in LDS theology.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

It seems to me you hold a view of Catholicism that may not be entirely accurate. You’ve been most helpful with all of us Catholics on Mormonism, I wanted to try and return the favour. Thank you for your posts.

It’s very likely that my understanding of Catholic dogma is lacking in many respects and I appreciate any correction.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

I didn’t know early Mormon prophets married women who already had husbands. What was the point of that? I also didn’t know celestial marriage involved polygamy. I’ll have to mention these things to the Mormon missionaries who visit me weekly.

The missionaries who visit you probably know as much about it as you do. In Mormonism we believe in what is called “sealing.” That is husbands and wives need to be sealed to each other and they need to be sealed in turn to their children and their parents. When Joseph Smith first taught this, most Mormons were first generation Mormons with no parents who were also Mormons. In order to be sealed, you first must be baptized, and then live a life that is consistent with discipleship. After having lived faithfully, a person can be sealed to his/her spouse and parents and children. Some women chose to be “sealed” (not married) to Joseph Smith. Men too were “sealed” to Church leaders if their parents were not baptized. (In the PBS show on the Mormons they mentioned that John D. Lee was an adopted son of Brigham Young. They usually mention this to imply that Young raised Lee. In reality, Lee was “sealed” to Young when they were both adults since Lee didn’t have Mormon parents.) Likewise, if women were married to men who didn’t qualify to be sealed, they were sealed to Church leaders. Lately, biographers have tried to make a big deal about this implying that the women were married to Joseph Smith and their other husbands at the same time. There is no credible evidence that these sealings were anything more than theological ties, just as John D. Lee’s sealing didn’t count as a marriage or a legal adoption. A book that’s made the most hay about this from a
lugubrious perspective is “In Sacred Loneliness, The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith.” Although the author does grant in a footnote that these polyandrous sealings probably functioned without cohabitation, if he made that clearer, the purpose of riling women against Joseph Smith wouldn’t have materialized. I discussed this in a review of that book at the MHA about 5 years ago. You can find the review by googling my name and the book’s title.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

If I understand this correctly, through the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, God does not welcome some of his children who sin. Are they not allowed a chance to repent of their sins and be baptized? Have Mormons already pronounced these Africans lost? Perhaps I’ve misunderstood.

No, they haven’t pronounced them lost any more than they’ve pronounced present day fundamentalist polygamists as lost; they’re just not eligible for baptism. My cousin has two daughters who “married” the same man as fundamentalists. They’re in their early forties now and they have many children. A couple of years ago, they all decided that fundamentalism was wrong and they wanted to join the Mormon faith. (They had been raised in this polygamous sect.) They were told that they were welcome to attend church and have their children attend Sunday School, but that they could not be baptized while living in a polygamous lifestyle and LDS leaders did not recommend that the wives leave their husband in order to qualify for baptism. I think the LDS Church believes that this would amount to divorce and only compounds the problem because children need a father and a mother. This man now attends an LDS ward with his children and their mothers. When one of the three pass away, the other two will probably be allowed to be baptized and then 1 Cor. 15:29 will come into play for the deceased. Currently, I think that’s the wisest course to pursue.

Alma

 

[majick275]

Todd compton put a lot of documented evidence into his book. perhaps you could offer some of your own before just waving off Joseph Smith’s adulterous affairs as “theological” “sealings”. Every mormon knows that sealing a woman to a man is a MARRIAGE. please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence with throwing the sealing to parents in as a red herring. There are numerous entries in multiple early LDS leaders journals and even in Joseph Smith’s own to show that he was in fact fully conjugating with multiple women including some that were already married. their husbands were not unworthy of sealings either, they were men whom Joseph appointed to leadership positions. here area few verifiable examples:

i4m.com/think/history/Joseph_Smth_mens_wives.htm

a good list of them is here:

wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Compton and van waggoner (both LDS) have provided a wealth of easily verifiable evidence that Joseph was using his position as “prophet” to “reveal” to women that God had given them to him as wives. I find the placing of scripture in the D&C renouncing polygamy and affirming that LDS don’t practice it during this time to be evidence that Joseph was lying and womanizing. The “secret” revelation that did not becoem section 132 until after his death shows the line he was feeding Emma and these other women to try and justify it. The lack of “cohabitation” was a ruse. that way Joseph could deny it. Emma was opposed to it and this made it easier for him. Brigham Young was able to do whatever he wanted in utah but Joseph was already being attacked in the press and in public for his womanizing before Nauvoo even.

There is simply too much LDS material available that PROVES that Joseph Smith was sleeping around and claiming that God commanded it to deny it. I think the only actual argument here is whether or not God commanded it. Based on my reading of the Bible (and the BoM and original D&C) I say NO! based on my prayers and the testimony of the Holy Spirit I say NOO!!!

 

[Alma147]

Todd compton …

I read his book three times. How many times have you read it?

Lists and assumptions don’t impress me. As I wrote above, even Compton suggested that these sealings weren’t equivalent to marriage. Is his comment an insulting red herring as well, or is it just the messenger you object to rather than the message?

Alma

 

[majick275]

i have no problem with the messenger. Compton is careful to caveat this as SOME of those sealings were in his opinion marriages for eternity but not for this life. Compton is also LDS and desperately trying to find a way for Joseph to be a valid prophet. Even at face value though, we know from his own writings that just because Emma wouldn’t let him “cohabit” didn’t stop him from conjugating with them. Van Waggoner also wrote on this and between the two you can see what was going on. I didn’t provide mere “lists and assumptions”. I provided references that you could verify of multiple accounts of Joseph taking other men’s wives in marriage and showing his attempts to gather even more. Those accounts are why many of his top leaders split with him (cowdery, rigdon, law, etc.) His philandering was published in the nauvoo paper causing him to have it destroyed to try and suppress the story. The “persecutions” he had faced was due to defrauded investors, angry husbands and angry fathers who would not put up with his evil ways. Emma apparently wasn’t too pleased with it either but he had a “revelation” that God would destroy her if she didn’t accept it. How did that turn out? who got “destroyed”?

 

[rmcmullan]

Ok everyone, here are my thoughts.

I joined the church (mormon) many years ago and, I end up leaving mostly because polygamy. …

Mapi, I have to ask then how you react when you read the many instances of polygamy in the Old Testament. The 12 tribes of Israel being from four different mothers.

To me, ploygamy is one of those questions like “Thou shalt not kill” being proceeded by instruction to wipe out the city of Jericho. Just hard to come to grips with.

I think that it’s a lower form of marriage and should be used sparingly and only with judgement. I haven’t heard anyone making an arguement for it building a stronger society. It engenders jealousy and hurt among the women and dilutes greatly the father’s ability to support his children. SO how does that help anyone? Still, I think you can think of special cases where it might be an acceptable compromise.

Most of the Biblical instances of polygamy were driven by infertility and in many places where it is practiced today, that’s still the case. And in order to support more than one wife, the men usually had to be fairly rich.

 

[Mapi]

Mapi, I have to ask then how you react when you read the many instances of polygamy in the Old Testament. The 12 tribes of Israel being from four different mothers.

Well, polygamy is not the only reason.

How do I react when I read the many instances of polygamy in the Old Testament, well, you just said it, that happened during the times of the Old Testament. I am a Christian and follow the teachings of the New Testament, or in other words the teachings of Christ my savior!

Yes, it is true that some people practiced polygamy in the Old Testament, but that does not make it ok either. First, many Mormons said that God gave Hagar to Abraham, but:

 God did not give Hagar to Abraham, it was Sarah go gave her to him.

 Sarah was Abraham’s sister, so maybe they didn’t have the normal relationship that a husband and his wife should have!

 The child borned from Sarah (Isaac) was the rightful heir; I think we all know why.

 Also, Jacob only wanted Rachel, but her father tricked him and gave him her sister instead. And Jacob was very upset about this.

 

[rmcmullan]

Well if you’re throwing out the Old Testament just to support your opinion on polygamy, I think that’s a little overboard. Might as well throw out Adam and Eve and Noah and the Ark too. Or are you trying to say that it was a practise by man that God condoned but discouraged?

I remember reading through the OT for the first time and being very surprised at all the polygamy that’s mentioned in it, particularly since neither the modern Jew and Christian forbids it.

If you just want to say “The whole thing is too creepy and the OT prophets and patriarchs were just wrong” that’s okay too. This is a religious argument and there aren’t any rules you really need to play by. I still haven’t figured out why the Jews don’t have animal sacrifices, they are certainly part of the law of Moses so I don’t think I’ll ever find out what the history of polygamy among Christians and Jews was. I’m thinking though that there is some sort of allowance for a limited practice, even though I think that it’s in general bad for a society as a whole.

 

[Mapi]

Well if you’re throwing out the Old Testament just to support your opinion on polygamy, I think that’s a little overboard. Might as well throw out Adam and Eve and Noah and the Ark too. Or are you trying to say that it was a practise by man that God condoned but discouraged?

I remember reading through the OT for the first time and being very surprised at all the polygamy that’s mentioned in it, particularly since neither the modern Jew and Christian forbids it.

Why are you putting so much emphasis in the OT, what about the NT? And yes, prophets were sinners too!

I am still trying to figure out things just like you are, so I hope that we can be nice to each other

 

[Good_Daughter]

In early Mormonism, why would a married woman want to be “sealed” to Joseph Smith if she already had a Mormon husband? Why not just be sealed to her first husband? I sometimes get the impression Smith was the 19th C equivalent to a modern rock star. (I hope that’s not disrespectful, I don’t mean to be.)

Alma is right, my visiting missionaries don’t know much about early Mormon polygamy. They told me it was practiced because there was a shortage of males. This is certainly not always the case, as majick275 points out.

I think that it’s a lower form of marriage and should be used sparingly and only with judgement. I haven’t heard anyone making an arguement for it building a stronger society.

If God is commanding something quite clearly, it doesn’t leave much room for judgement, does it? I thought raising up righteous seed was central to procreation for Mormons (especially those practicing God-approved polygamy). Wouldn’t an important end of this be building a stronger society?

As a non-Mormon, I think the Mormon faith would be more attractive if it included some type of catechism. Official LDS teaching all in one place would be helpful when different takes on a subject start to conflict.

 

[Good_Daughter]

No, they haven’t pronounced them lost any more than they’ve pronounced present day fundamentalist polygamists as lost; they’re just not eligible for baptism. My cousin has two daughters who “married” the same man as fundamentalists. They’re in their early forties now and they have many children. A couple of years ago, they all decided that fundamentalism was wrong and they wanted to join the Mormon faith. (They had been raised in this polygamous sect.) They were told that they were welcome to attend church and have their children attend Sunday School, but that they could not be baptized while living in a polygamous lifestyle and LDS leaders did not recommend that the wives leave their husband in order to qualify for baptism. I think the LDS Church believes that this would amount to divorce and only compounds the problem because children need a father and a mother. This man now attends an LDS ward with his children and their mothers. When one of the three pass away, the other two will probably be allowed to be baptized and then 1 Cor. 15:29 will come into play for the deceased. Currently, I think that’s the wisest course to pursue.

Alma

Hi Alma, sorry to hear about the recent disaster, I hope everything is okay now.

As a member of the Catholic(universal) Church, it is difficult for me to imagine baptism being unavailable to any one who repents of their sins, including polygamy. Of course polygamous unions that involve children are tough cases and care needs to be taken so that children involved have the best life possible. I fail to see how these children living in an environment where adultery is condoned can be spiritually healthy. The souls of the parents are also precious to God and I wonder why they are allowed to go on living in a sinful relationship. If I have a child out of wedlock, should I be allowed to live with my partner, to provide a mother and father for the child, even though we’re not married? Also, is it divorce when one marriage is not really valid?

 

[Allweather]

I’m thinking though that there is some sort of allowance for a limited practice, even though I think that it’s (polygamy) in general bad for a society as a whole.

Then you’re on the right track. Yes, polygamy is bad for society. Polygamy was at the point of conflict between the 19th century Mormons and the rest of Christian America. Christian America knows polygamy is bad for society, and could never tolerate a polygamous state of Utah. That is why, for example, when Senator Smoot was elected, it took several years of hearings, much of which revolved around Mormon teachings, before he was seated in the Senate. The Senate was flooded with thousands of petitions from Americans asking them to reject Smoot because he was not just a Mormon, but a Mormon apostle.

Now, since you admit that polygamy is bad for society, you might also consider why God would command something so obviously wrong. Every command of God is correct and right, and if followed by people, even unbelievers, will result in a good society. Why, then, would God command something bad for society? Either you’re just pretending to believe that polygamy is bad for society, or you’re about to have a moment of catharsis, in which you finally realize that Joseph Smith wasn’t what he claimed to be.

 

[rmcmullan]

Well Allweather, I would test your reply against the many instances of polygamy in the OT and ask you the same question. How could you overlook all those instances?

 

[jooh8ter]

Suck my nuts- mormons shouldn’t be allowed within a five hundred mile radius of the catholic church

stupid *******