Mormon President

[why_me]

Not to mention that polygamy doesn’t seem as if it’d work, merely as a practical matter, The average man’s doing well if he can be a decent, supportive, caring husband, day in and day out, to one woman, let alone a half-dozen. I’d shudder for the wife who received a half, a third, or a fourth of my current time and resources. Instructive that polygamy tends to flourish in the sort of cultures where such attention is often considered wasted on the likes of women.

The other reason for polygamy in Utah was over economic reasons. Life was tough for many single women who happened to find themselves in Utah at that time without a husband. For some, polygamy gave an added security of having a bread winner in the home and it gave these woman not only a home but also some of the male resources. Many of the women going into plural marriage were: without fathers, widows, and divorced. The need for a male breadwinner became somewhat paramount for survival.

 

[PaulDupre]

The other reason for polygamy in Utah was over economic reasons. Life was tough for many single women who happened to find themselves in Utah at that time without a husband. For some, polygamy gave an added security of having a bread winner in the home and it gave these woman not only a home but also some of the male resources. Many of the women going into plural marriage were: without fathers, widows, and divorced. The need for a male breadwinner became somewhat paramount for survival.

You realize, don’t you, that Mormon polygamy started with Joseph Smith in Kirtland, OH long before the trek to Utah under Brigham Young.

Smith and the other LDS leaders sent the eligible young men away on missions so that they could have all of the young women for themselves. Smith even seduced and “married” women who were already married to other men.

Please don’t trot out those old excuses for what was really just self-serving lust.

Paul

 

[why_me]

You realize, don’t you, that Mormon polygamy started with Joseph Smith in Kirtland, OH long before the trek to Utah under Brigham Young.

Smith and the other LDS leaders sent the eligible young men away on missions so that they could have all of the young women for themselves. Smith even seduced and “married” women who were already married to other men.

Please don’t trot out those old excuses for what was really just self-serving lust.

Paul

I gave you an explanation for polygamy and why it was used by mormons. It did start with Joseph Smith who believed that it was a commandment from god. And certain of these women claimed to have spiritual witnesses of its validity. But as practiced in Utah, I gave the explanation. One must separate the Nauvoo period (Joseph Smith) from the Utah experience. (Brigham Young)

Smith ‘seduction’ of married women had the blessings of the husbands. These marriages were sealings and not actual ‘marriages’.

No reason to get all negative on me.

Smith and Young did not send the young men on missions so that they could have all the women themselves. Young was also on a mission. The practice during Smith’s time was kept secret and denied by those in the know. But those that knew, knew of the practice, and it did cause problems for the lds church among non-members and also among the members during Smith’s time. It was no swim downstream for Smith.

 

[Allweather]

Smith and Young did not send the young men on missions so that they could have all the women themselves. Young was also on a mission. The practice during Smith’s time was kept secret and denied by those in the know. But those that knew, knew of the practice, and it did cause problems for the lds church among non-members and also among the members during Smith’s time. It was no swim downstream for Smith.

I find it interesting that you are taking such a defensive position with respect to Mormon polygamy. The fact that polygamy has always been considered a sinful practice by the Christian Church, it should have come as no surprise that Smith would find stiff currents in the river, as you say. It also suggests a reason that Smith and his co-conspirators kept their adulterous practices hidden as best they could.

You are quite correct in saying that polygamy “did cause problems for the lds church” but you are understating the obvious. Polygamy was the very downfall of Joseph Smith, and stands to be the most damaging witness of Mormon degenerate theology in the world today. The more Mormons support and defend polygamy, the more they are aligning themselves with anti-Judeo-Christian morality. It may be that atheistic and pantheistic modern women support all kinds of sinful behaviors, but I seriously doubt that those feminists among them will find very much to like in the patriarchal style of Mormon polygamy.

 

[cubalibre]

I started this thread because of the political crossroads we are at. If the Democrats win and eventually tip the balance in the Supreme Court I believe within 20 years homosexual challenges on marriages will win. Once you change the definition of marriage to more than just one man and one woman I think you lose the argument about excluding plural marriages. Polygamist Mormon sects will probably begin to grow right under the nose of the larger LDS church if this happens. What will their reaction be when this happens? If the social opprobrium lifts some in the LDS may take this as a sign that the time is ripe to re-institute the practice. I do not find it that far fetched. Look at how many people support homosexual unions now. Who would have predicted this 20 years ago? The idea that evangelicals would never accept a mormon in the white house could also change. Right now there is a PR campaign to do just this. Anyone listen to the Hugh Hewitt show on the radio? He is touting his new book, A Mormon in the White House. He argues with evangelical callers about why they should accept Romney as a viable candidate. I think he is making headway. Whether he wins or not what the process does achieve is to reshape the image of Mormonism into something more acceptable to the average American. Obviously he is not a polygamist and I don’t believe he would ever espouse such a view. But it is interesting that there are developments in this country that appear will intersect in the near future. The legal acceptance of homosexuality and polygamy and the mainstreaming of Mormonism as a Protestant-like sect. When these two intersect this may create the right conditons for the LDS to reinstitute the practice.Saludos, CubaLibre

 

[why_me]

Polygamist Mormon sects will probably begin to grow right under the nose of the larger LDS church if this happens. What will their reaction be when this happens? If the social opprobrium lifts some in the LDS may take this as a sign that the time is ripe to re-institute the practice. I do not find it that far fetched.

It is just a little far-fetched. The practice will not be reinstated. And polygamous mormon sects may not grow. In Utah, there are independent mormon sects who practice polygamy but these groupings are not tied to a so-called ‘compound’. They just firmly believe that god has called certain men and women to live polygamous lives. They usually have been excommunicated from the lds church over this issue. I do not see such groups as growing and certainly the compound polygamous mormons are under a lot of pressure to conform.

The lds church is against same-sex marriage as is the catholic church. It is one issue that unites both churches. I think that the catholic church and the lds church should look upon this as a positive sign and form alliances on such issues. In numbers there are strengths. And if not the churches, then the members of both faiths can get together within their communities and fight against the pressures to transform the definition of the family . Mormons do not have horns.

 

[why_me]

I find it interesting that you are taking such a defensive position with respect to Mormon polygamy. The fact that polygamy has always been considered a sinful practice by the Christian Church, it should have come as no surprise that Smith would find stiff currents in the river, as you say. It also suggests a reason that Smith and his co-conspirators kept their adulterous practices hidden as best they could.

I think that we need more understanding of why people do what they do. I am not defending polygamy but offering an explanation for it. The Mormons add a colorful aspect to US history in the 19th century. But in all truthfulness what happened to them as a people and as a religion was sad for US history too. They found it difficult to practice their faith. And Joseph Smith was murdered in cold blood by a mob of people while he was in prison and his brother was murdered with him. That is not justice but an injustice.

Mitt Romney should not be judged by his religion but by his policies. If catholics begin to judge Romney by his religion, then catholics have learned nothing from their own history in the United States when protestants thought of catholic candidates as papists and not to be trusted.

Lets not fall into the same trap.

 

[why_me]

The more Mormons support and defend polygamy, the more they are aligning themselves with anti-Judeo-Christian morality. It may be that atheistic and pantheistic modern women support all kinds of sinful behaviors, but I seriously doubt that those feminists among them will find very much to like in the patriarchal style of Mormon polygamy.

The lds church does not support polygamy. But Mormon apologists do defend polygamy for its time and place. And feminists by and large do not support the polices of the lds church. The priesthood is male, as it is in the Catholic Church. And the LDS church believes strongly in the nuclear family as does the Catholic Church.

 

[Allweather]

I started this thread because of the political crossroads we are at. If the Democrats win and eventually tip the balance in the Supreme Court I believe within 20 years homosexual challenges on marriages will win. Once you change the definition of marriage to more than just one man and one woman I think you lose the argument about excluding plural marriages. Polygamist Mormon sects will probably begin to grow right under the nose of the larger LDS church if this happens. What will their reaction be when this happens? If the social opprobrium lifts some in the LDS may take this as a sign that the time is ripe to re-institute the practice. I do not find it that far fetched. Look at how many people support homosexual unions now. Who would have predicted this 20 years ago? The idea that evangelicals would never accept a mormon in the white house could also change. Right now there is a PR campaign to do just this. Anyone listen to the Hugh Hewitt show on the radio? He is touting his new book, A Mormon in the White House. He argues with evangelical callers about why they should accept Romney as a viable candidate. I think he is making headway. Whether he wins or not what the process does achieve is to reshape the image of Mormonism into something more acceptable to the average American. Obviously he is not a polygamist and I don’t believe he would ever espouse such a view. But it is interesting that there are developments in this country that appear will intersect in the near future. The legal acceptance of homosexuality and polygamy and the mainstreaming of Mormonism as a Protestant-like sect. When these two intersect this may create the right conditons for the LDS to reinstitute the practice.Saludos, CubaLibre

We probably are seeing the mainstreaming of Mormonism along lines of traditional Protestantism. This is a process that has been on-going for around 100 years. Based on how little Mormons-in-the-street are taught about the brazen Mormon practices of 150 years ago, it is easy to conclude that there is an active and deliberate pressure with the Salt Lake City branch to move towards Christianity. We can also see this among the former RLDS sect, now calling themselves Community of Christ, in a bald-faced attempt to become more Christian-seeming, if not outright Christian.

As for what you say about a Democrat President tipping the scales towards more permissive marriage regulations, I would say that the proper way to view this is that political will is growing in the United States, as it is all around the western world, towards this and other ends. A political change is a symptom rather than a cause.

The Republican candidacy of Mitt Romney is a moot point, because the Republicans really stand no chance of retaining the White House in 2008, whether their man be a Mormon or a cross dressing, flaming queen. The war in Iraq, the burgeoning national debt, the Republican scandals, the correct perception among the voting public that the Republicans are off their rockers, is what will cause the change in party at the Executive. Romney’s Mormonism is just an interesting sideshow.

 

[Allweather]

I think that we need more understanding of why people do what they do. I am not defending polygamy but offering an explanation for it. The Mormons add a colorful aspect to US history in the 19th century. But in all truthfulness what happened to them as a people and as a religion was sad for US history too. They found it difficult to practice their faith. And Joseph Smith was murdered in cold blood by a mob of people while he was in prison and his brother was murdered with him. That is not justice but an injustice.

There is more to the story than you imply by your overly brief and sympathetic thumbnail. There was a lot to dislike about the Mormons of the 1830s, 40s, and 50s, not to mention those of the following decades. Joseph Smith, far from being the shy little farmboy of modern Mormon fables, was an intelligent, arrogant, aggressive, ambitious cult founder who was known to think of himself as The American Mohammed. It is not hard to understand why he was killed by his neighbors. In those days, mob violence wasn’t all that uncommon.

I understand your desire to minimize the realities of the Mormon past. You say it was “colorful” as if to say, it was something along the lines of a Disneyland attraction. Rather, Mormonism was a flagrant anti-American, theocratic, adulterous snake-pit, led by people who, in spite of their patriotic rhetoric, were not reading off the same page that the rest of the American public were.

Mitt Romney should not be judged by his religion but by his policies. If catholics begin to judge Romney by his religion, then catholics have learned nothing from their own history in the United States when protestants thought of catholic candidates as papists and not to be trusted.

Lets not fall into the same trap.

Religion is a legitimate area of public scrutiny in Presidential candidates. The JFK candidacy, though not the first Catholic in American history, was the first successful one. In that case, however, the issue was primarily of papal influence, rather than whether JFK was a flaming cultist who favored polygamous unions and had pie-in-the-sky notions of himself one day becoming a god. I really don’t see the equivalence between Romney and JFK. According to your statement, we should also be unconcerned if a Mooney, or a member of the Jonestown cult, or a David Koresh devotee, should aspire to the White House.

 

[why_me]

We probably are seeing the mainstreaming of Mormonism along lines of traditional Protestantism. This is a process that has been on-going for around 100 years. Based on how little Mormons-in-the-street are taught about the brazen Mormon practices of 150 years ago, it is easy to conclude that there is an active and deliberate pressure with the Salt Lake City branch to move towards Christianity. We can also see this among the former RLDS sect, now calling themselves Community of Christ, in a bald-faced attempt to become more Christian-seeming, if not outright Christian.

Romney’s Mormonism is just an interesting sideshow.

I have this strange feeling that you don’t think mormons are christians and yet, if I were to ask a mormon if they are christian, they would answer yes. In fact the name of the Mormon Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As far as the Community of Christ is concerned I do believe that they think of themselves as christians too. Am I in a position to disagree with them or with the mormons? My Catholic relatives never go to Mass and some can live by beer drinking and partying. And I know Mormons who attempt to keep their bodies holy for the holy spirit to dwell in. I just can’t say who are ‘true’ christians and who are not. But God knows.

If I were to ask Mitt Romney: ‘Mitt are you a Christian’? I believe that he will answer yes. Can I disagree? And we must remember that there are still protestant sects out there who believe that Catholics are not Christian. And I don’t particularly like it when I hear such things.

I tend to form an opinion of people by their standards and values and how they treat their fellow human beings. And not if their Christian church is ‘Christian’.

 

[Allweather]

The lds church does not support polygamy. But Mormon apologists do defend polygamy for its time and place. And feminists by and large do not support the polices of the lds church. The priesthood is male, as it is in the Catholic Church. And the LDS church believes strongly in the nuclear family as does the Catholic Church.

You need to qualify your statement. It is NOT correct to say that the LDS church does not support polygamy. It is more correct to say that the lds Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism has stopped practicing polygamy in obedience to United States law. Other branches of Mormonism continue to practice polygamy. Salt Lake City isn’t the only iteration of Mormonism, you know.

There is no comparison whatever between the Mormon priesthood, and the priesthood of the Catholic Church. The fact that both are limited to males is hardly a comparison worthy of note. A Catholic priest is a person several orders of magnitude higher than any little Mormon boy in a wrinkled white shirt. Calling a boy a priest doesn’t make him one.

Yes, the LDS church does have a strong family teaching, and that is its strong feature. No question. So do Catholics and Jews. And so do an awful lot of atheists and pagans. Strong family life is beneficial to society, and is promoted by other religions, as well as non-religionists. I agree that we should get together on this issue.

 

[zerinus]

I started this thread because of the political crossroads we are at. If the Democrats win and eventually tip the balance in the Supreme Court I believe within 20 years homosexual challenges on marriages will win. Once you change the definition of marriage to more than just one man and one woman I think you lose the argument about excluding plural marriages. Polygamist Mormon sects will probably begin to grow right under the nose of the larger LDS church if this happens. What will their reaction be when this happens? If the social opprobrium lifts some in the LDS may take this as a sign that the time is ripe to re-institute the practice. I do not find it that far fetched. Look at how many people support homosexual unions now. Who would have predicted this 20 years ago? The idea that evangelicals would never accept a mormon in the white house could also change. Right now there is a PR campaign to do just this. Anyone listen to the Hugh Hewitt show on the radio? He is touting his new book, A Mormon in the White House. He argues with evangelical callers about why they should accept Romney as a viable candidate. I think he is making headway. Whether he wins or not what the process does achieve is to reshape the image of Mormonism into something more acceptable to the average American. Obviously he is not a polygamist and I don’t believe he would ever espouse such a view. But it is interesting that there are developments in this country that appear will intersect in the near future. The legal acceptance of homosexuality and polygamy and the mainstreaming of Mormonism as a Protestant-like sect. When these two intersect this may create the right conditons for the LDS to reinstitute the practice.Saludos, CubaLibre

My personal opinion is that the LDS Church will never push for the legalization of polygamy for the simple reason that if it was legalized in the US, it would have to be legalized for everybody, not just for LDS; and that would leave it open so abuse. When it was practised among the LDS people in the territory of Utah, the necessary safeguards were in place to prevent it from being abused. But if it was legalized as a national law in the US, the necessary safeguards would not exist to prevent it from being abused. Of course, that does not prevent other apostate groups who have broken away from the main LDS Church (and are now practising polygamy illegally) to push for its legalization—and there is a very slim chance that they might even succeed if they tried hard enough. However, I believe that the likelihood of their succeeding would be very small, because it would be opposed by the Evangelical groups who are politically very influential in the US, as well as by the Catholics who are not without influence, and equally as much by the LDS Church.

zerinus

 

[Eden]

When Mitt Romney was asked about polygamy, he had a great line, something along the lines of “I’m the only Republican candidate who has had just one wife!” That was great.

I’m willing to consider a Mormon president, but I admit that I fear having a Mormon leader would in some way legitimize the heresy of his faith. I can’t say I would definitely not vote for him, but I have reservations. So, polygamy isn’t the issue that makes me cautious. It’s the larger issue of the demarginalization of Joseph Smith’s religion. But if I feel he is the strongest candidate to lead the country, I’ll still vote for him. I’m still trying to get to know all of the candidates better at this point.

 

[cubalibre]

Zerinus replied:
“My personal opinion is that the LDS Church will never push for the legalization of polygamy for the simple reason that if it was legalized in the US, it would have to be legalized for everybody, not just for LDS; and that would leave it open so abuse. When it was practised among the LDS people in the territory of Utah, the necessary safeguards were in place to prevent it from being abused. But if it was legalized as a national law in the US, the necessary safeguards would not exist to prevent it from being abused. Of course, that does not prevent other apostate groups who have broken away from the main LDS Church (and are now practising polygamy illegally) to push for its legalization—and there is a very slim chance that they might even succeed if they tried hard enough. However, I believe that the likelihood of their succeeding would be very small, because it would be opposed by the Evangelical groups who are politically very influential in the US, as well as by the Catholics who are not without influence, and equally as much by the LDS Church.”

What safeguards did the LDS have back in the 19th century? Are they different from current polygamous sects? If polygamy were legal why not allow it within the LDS?
cubalibre

 

[Chris-WA]

My personal opinion is that the LDS Church will never push for the legalization of polygamy for the simple reason that if it was legalized in the US, it would have to be legalized for everybody, not just for LDS; and that would leave it open so abuse.

That’s silly. The only reason the LDS church “suspended” polygamy was that they were facing the annihilation of their church by the U.S. government. They did it for pure survival. That is also why they won’t do it again. It has nothing to do with how the rest of the “gentile” nation would practice polygamy.

When it was practised among the LDS people in the territory of Utah, the necessary safeguards were in place to prevent it from being abused.

What were those safeguards? Like the safeguard of Joseph Smith secretly practicing it for years before telling his first wife or the church? Like when the Mormon leaders sent church members to Mexico and Canada to establish polygamous comunities after officially renouncing the practice under pressure from the U.S. government? My favorite “safeguard” has to be when Joseph claimed that God threatened Emma with destruction if she didn’t accept his polygamous practices. The entire history of LDS polygamy is wrought with scandal and deceit. The very practice of polygamy was wrong in the first place. Polygamy itself was an offense against Christian marriage. Nothing good has ever come out of it.

 

[August]

Interesting thread. Here’s my two cents.

A Mormon president would be more likely to prevent the legalization of polygamy than a more secular politician would be for two reasons. First, the LDS would never push to legalize polygamy because it would destroy any pretenses they have about being seen as a mainstream denomination, and another 180 on the polygamy issue would destroy their credibility. Secondly, I seriously doubt that any legislation would ever be passed to legalize polygamy, legalization of polygamy would have to come from the supreme court. A practicing Mormon president would be very likely to appoint the kind of conservative justices who would not rule in favor of such nonsense.

On a slightly related note: if you are considering voting for Romney, please take another look. I know what he says now sounds good, but compare it to what he was saying just 4 years ago. The guy is totally dishonest.

 

[zerinus]

What safeguards did the LDS have back in the 19th century?

Many, the most important being that at that time and place, the practice had the Lord’s approval, divine sanction, and blessing. Okay, if you don’t believe that the LDS Church has (or had) any divine sanction for anything, that won’t mean a lot to you. But it means a lot to LDS people including me, who know that it does. There were other safeguards. Those who practised it were a very small percentage of LDS people (between 2% to 5%); and they had to be approved. I recall having read somewhere that those wanting to practice it had to obtain approval from the First Presidency, although I can’t find the source for it right now. They had to be approved for worthiness. I have searched the Internet, and found the following information. It is an extract from the interview of Gordon B. Hinckley by Larry King. Emphasis is mine:

Gordon B. Hinckley: When our people came west they permitted it on a restricted scale.

Larry King: You could have a certain amount of…

Gordon B. Hinckley: The figures I have are from—between two percent and five percent of our people were involved in it. It was a very limited practice; carefully safeguarded. In 1890, that practice was discontinued. The president of the church, the man who occupied the position which I occupy today, went before the people, said he had, oh, prayed about it, worked on it, and had received from the Lord a revelation that it was time to stop, to discontinue it then. That’s 118 years ago. It’s behind us. Source.

Are they different from current polygamous sects?

Very much so, the most important being that they have no divine sanction for their practice, as the LDS Church did at that time.

If polygamy were legal why not allow it within the LDS?

If it were legalized, I can’t guess what the Church’s reaction to it would be. But I am of the opinion that the Church would oppose its legalization were the issue to come up, for the reasons previously described.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

That’s silly. The only reason the LDS church “suspended” polygamy was that they were facing the annihilation of their church by the U.S. government. They did it for pure survival. That is also why they won’t do it again. It has nothing to do with how the rest of the “gentile” nation would practice polygamy.

That is an even dumber comment still. I thought that weatherman had made the dumbest possible comment in this thread. I didn’t think it was possible to up his score. But you have broken his record.

Okay, let’s suppose you are right, and LDS discontinued polygamy purely as a result of pressure from the American Government. If so, why should they oppose its legalization now? Surely they should welcome it, because the restriction would then be removed. There would be no more pressure or obstruction. All would be legal and aboveboard. So why should they oppose its legalization now?

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

I have this strange feeling that you don’t think mormons are christians and yet, if I were to ask a mormon if they are christian, they would answer yes. In fact the name of the Mormon Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As far as the Community of Christ is concerned I do believe that they think of themselves as christians too. Am I in a position to disagree with them or with the mormons? My Catholic relatives never go to Mass and some can live by beer drinking and partying. And I know Mormons who attempt to keep their bodies holy for the holy spirit to dwell in. I just can’t say who are ‘true’ christians and who are not. But God knows.

I think Mormons are Christians according to a generous definition of the term, but not according to a strict definition. It really doesn’t matter what words you put in your name. What matters is whether you adhere to the doctrines of orthodoxy. This works both ways. Mormons consider orthodox Christians to be apostate, which I take to mean they do not consider them to be “Christians” in the strict understanding that Mormons hold for that term. The fact that they call themselves Church of Christ, or First Christian Church, or whatever, doesn’t make them Christian according to the Mormon understanding, though according to orthodox definitions, they ARE Christian.

I tend to form an opinion of people by their standards and values and how they treat their fellow human beings. And not if their Christian church is ‘Christian’.

That’s fair, and so do I. Lots of very good people are not Christian. There are good Buddhists, and good Moslems, and even a lot of darned good atheists. But let’s not get confused over what a Christian is.