Mormon President

[Allweather]

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

Zerinus himself has stated, right here in this forum, that the only reason LDS Salt Lake City Branch stopped practicing polygamy was to bring it into conformity with the Law of the Land.

As for why the Salt Lake City Mormons would oppose legalization of polygamy, the opinion is that to favor polygamy in public would oppose their century-old efforts to mainstream Mormonism along Protestant lines. There would be serious fractures to develop within the SLC Branch itself, because lots and lots of LDS people, especially WOMEN, would be strongly opposed to any resumption of polygamous practices among their menfolk. There are other, more political reasons, too, which a perceptive mind should have no problem visualizing.

 

[Allweather]

The Mormon prophet, the same one who, in the same interview, couldn’t remember anything his own church had to teach about men becoming gods, is quoted by Zerinus thus:

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.

You have to admit, the man is not a fool. Probably has some legal training. His memory gets all fuzzy whenever hard questions get asked. Reminds me of certain politicians, mostly lawyers, who can remember fine detail when it suits their purposes, but whose memories suffer fuzziness whenever it doesn’t.

The PROBLEM for reverend Hinckley, as for the Mormon church at-large, including those schismatic Mormons who still love and practice polygamy, is that polygamy isn’t “behind us” as the prophet wishes it were. Polygamy will never be “behind” and forgotten about. When Mitt Romney started making squeeky sounds about wanting to be President, the very first questions he was asked were about Mormon polygamy. He described polygamy as “bizarre.” He knows better than to run on polygamy pride. Like all Mormons who want to put their best Protestant feet forward, Romney and Hinckley begin by running away from Mormon doctrine and Mormon history.

 

[majick275]

Hinckley is careful to qualify his erroneous statistics. “the figures I have”… the truth is :

*Beginning with the percentage of early Mormons practicing polygamy, LDS historian Richard S. Van Wagoner wrote:

The most comprehensive study to date, detailing forty 1880 Mormon towns, found that almost 40 percent of St. George households were polygamous compared to 11 percent in nearby Harrisburg/Leeds. In Rockville only 10 percent was polygamous while 67 percent of Orderville was. In South Weber, north of Salt Lake City, 5 percent practiced polygamy, compared to nearly 30 percent of Bountiful. Other studies found a 15 percent incidence in Springville, while 63 percent of Mormon men in the Mexican colonies had more than one wife. (Mormon Polygamy: A History, second edition, page 91)

Furthermore, Mr. Van Wagoner wrote:

Some statements have suggested that the number was as low as 3 percent, but these estimates are usually based on figures given during the Reed Smoot hearings when a lower percentage was politically advantageous to the [LDS] church. Stanley S. Ivins in his analysis estimated 15-20 percent of Mormon families in Utah were polygamous. (Ibid., page 103, footnote 1)*

as long as section 132 remains scripture then it CAN’T be behind them. it is only temporarily not practiced.

 

[why_me]

Furthermore, Mr. Van Wagoner wrote:

Some statements have suggested that the number was as low as 3 percent, but these estimates are usually based on figures given during the Reed Smoot hearings when a lower percentage was politically advantageous to the [LDS] church. Stanley S. Ivins in his analysis estimated 15-20 percent of Mormon families in Utah were polygamous. (Ibid., page 103, footnote 1)

as long as section 132 remains scripture then it CAN’T be behind them. it is only temporarily not practiced.

The polygamy issue is behind the Mormons. But it isn’t behind the critics of the lds church. Not many members of the lds church think of polygamy but one can read about it on the internet in an effort to disparage the lds church. I listed on this thread some of the reasons that it was practiced in Utah. There were practical reasons for polygamy. The percentage of polygamous families is not the problem. The lds church grew and prospered in the Salt Lake Valley but it was not easy going in the beginning. Crop failures, hard times, death, left many women alone and in need.

Section 132 is an interesting scripture. There is much in that scripture that the lds use. And yes, it is behind the lds church.

 

[why_me]

Zerinus himself has stated, right here in this forum, that the only reason LDS Salt Lake City Branch stopped practicing polygamy was to bring it into conformity with the Law of the Land.

This is true. But I also believe that the practice was dwindling by that time. The need was not there. But for the lds, polygamy was a devinely sanctioned practice started by Joseph Smith as a revelation from god. It was not easy going for JS when it first began. His wife was angry as a bobcat as were other loyal mormons at that time. Some left the lds church over it. But he continued with the practice because he believed it to be of god. And although his wife never accepted the practice willingly, she also never denied her husband’s prophethood, nor did she deny the Book of Mormon. And this is what makes the Mormon story so interesting among other interesting tidbits. A great book was just written by Richard L. Bushman, published by Knopf, about Joseph Smith. It is perhaps the most comphensive book published about Joseph Smith. He was an interesting guy to be sure.

Should Mitt be president? Well, I am no Republican, but it would be an interesting presidency to experience.

 

[Allweather]

The percentage of polygamous families is not the problem. The lds church grew and prospered in the Salt Lake Valley but it was not easy going in the beginning. Crop failures, hard times, death, left many women alone and in need.

Here’s one of the problems with your line of reasoning: The Mormons weren’t the ONLY pioneers heading west during the 1840s as the U.S. took possession of the former Spanish and Mexican territories. There was a gold rush in CA in 1849. There were positively HUGE numbers of people headed west. Yet, the Mormons seem to be the only ones who had this shortage of menfolk. How could this possibly be?

Further, polygamy is a sin. It is a stepchild of the sin of adultery. It has always been so within Christianity, was so in 1830 when JS established the Mormon church, was so in the mid- to-late 1830s as he started sleeping with other men’s wives in secret, was so in the early- to mid-1840s when he “came out” with his sexual secrets, calling them holy, was so all during the turbulent years of Mormon growth and expansion, was so in 1890, was so throughout the 20th century, and is so today. Mormons claiming divine approval for the sin of adultery makes a liar of Jesus who taught, in his own words, that adultery in a sin and could not be tolerated. The common excuse we are given, that Mormons had a NEED to practice polygamy due to a shortage of men, doesn’t square with historical facts, nor does it explain why sin could be tolerated and even promoted for mere environmental “needs.”

This is one of Mormonism’s many problems. The Mormon religion takes sin and calls it holy. Polygamy may be “behind” a lot of clear-thinking modern Mormons, but there clearly are a lot of others (Zerinus among them) who fondly look forward to a lively harem at home. There clearly are many thousands of Mormons, separated from the Salt Lake City Branch, who believe that those in Salt Lake City are apostate for their abandonment of polygamy, and who still practice it today. This is a big problem for Mormonism, and though many would like to put polygamy behind them, it cannot be so.

 

[why_me]

Allweather,

You will find one mormon explanation for Utah polygamy on this site:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Polygamy.html

 

[Allweather]

Allweather,

You will find one mormon explanation for Utah polygamy on this site:

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Polygamy.html

Thanks, why me. I’ve only had enough time at this moment to scan the article. I will study it later today.

I note in particular the final paragraph:

““So in closing, marriage adapts within the doctrine of eternal marriage to meet the changing needs of Mormon society.””

While I’m certain that most Mormons felt justified, for perhaps a variety of reasons, to practice plural marriage, I am also certain that pioneers both before, during, and after the Mormon migrations had similar, perhaps even more pronounced, problems facing them. Yet the Mormons apparently are the only ones who adopted marriage practices that, by a Christian judgement, are sinful. Let’s say that the Pilgrims had started plural marriage. Lord knows, they were religious people. They knew the OT as well as the Mormons, maybe better. There surely were occasional imbalances in the male-female proportions. Wouldn’t school children today, weaned on stories of Pilgrim Christians, be shocked to learn that those people had forsaken the clear moral teachings of Our Lord and Church, simply because some among them needed temporal comforts?

I think that this is the essential point. Mormonism, for all its holy lifestyle, has a “flexible” theology that allows for these types of departures from moral orthodoxy. That seems to be what the author of this article is saying in the sentence I quoted above.

 

[PaulDupre]

Not only the theology, but Mormon morality is “flexible” as well. This flexibility has allowed them to feel justified in “spoiling the egyptians” (their term for swindling and stealing from non-Mormons), to “lie for the Lord” in order to get converts and hide their true beliefs and history, and to sustain polygamy as a true doctrine of Jesus that will be practiced in the next life if not eventually in this life.

Paul

 

[majick275]

The polygamy issue is behind the Mormons. But it isn’t behind the critics of the lds church. Not many members of the lds church think of polygamy but one can read about it on the internet in an effort to disparage the lds church. I listed on this thread some of the reasons that it was practiced in Utah. There were practical reasons for polygamy. The percentage of polygamous families is not the problem. The lds church grew and prospered in the Salt Lake Valley but it was not easy going in the beginning. Crop failures, hard times, death, left many women alone and in need.

Section 132 is an interesting scripture. There is much in that scripture that the lds use. And yes, it is behind the lds church.

I see that i did not list all of the mythbusters only the percentage who engaged in it. so let’s get out the other facts and quit pretending that it was necessary or positive in any way.

*LDS Apostle John Widtsoe wrote:

The most common of these conjectures is that the Church, through plural marriage, sought to provide husbands for its large surplus of female members. The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more females than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seem always to have been more males than females in the Church...

The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States… The theory that plural marriage was a consequence of a surplus of female Church members fails from lack of evidence. (Evidences and Reconciliations, pages 390-391)

I would submit that Mormonism stands or falls on joseph smith status as a prophet of God. (he was not) So how did he practice it? Of the 33 documented women that he married, 11 of them had living husbands at the time they were also wed to Joseph Smith. (See Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, pages 4-7)

and then there is the changing LDS D&C. the 1835 edition section 101 verse 4 specifically denounced polygamy as a crime and claimed explicitly that LDS did not practice it. this was approved by the LDs church in general conference as scripture and stayed there until about 1876 when it was removed. this was obviously being violated all during that time. so what was God’s will? what was in scripture or what was being practiced?

I don’t see how D&C 132 can allow for polygamy to be no longer an integral part of the LDS religion. It need not be practiced on earth currently but it must be believed in as a true principle that will be the rule in the celestial kingdom for one to truly believe the doctrines of the LDS church.

These aren’t anti-mormon prevarications to disparage anyone unfairly. they are easily verifiable facts. Mormons may wish to hide their past and many choose to ignore it. The LDS writings are often sanitized to eliminate embarrassing facts. why? if those were true prophets writing true scriptures and following the commands of god received in direct face to face communication then why not deal with the facts and explain them truthfully? why the tired old dodges of more women than men? men dying in the “persecutions” ? (other than the 17 at haun’s mill and joseph and hyrum smith what men died from persecutions of mormons?) raising up seed? there are no valid excuses for Joseph Smith’s actions regarding polygamy. the “persecutions” were a direct backlash against his lechery.

 

[majick275]

This is true. But I also believe that the practice was dwindling by that time. The need was not there. But for the lds, polygamy was a devinely sanctioned practice started by Joseph Smith as a revelation from god. It was not easy going for JS when it first began. His wife was angry as a bobcat as were other loyal mormons at that time. Some left the lds church over it. But he continued with the practice because he believed it to be of god. And although his wife never accepted the practice willingly, she also never denied her husband’s prophethood, nor did she deny the Book of Mormon. And this is what makes the Mormon story so interesting among other interesting tidbits. A great book was just written by Richard L. Bushman, published by Knopf, about Joseph Smith. It is perhaps the most comphensive book published about Joseph Smith. He was an interesting guy to be sure.

Should Mitt be president? Well, I am no Republican, but it would be an interesting presidency to experience.

yet Emma denied polygamy, eternal marriage and the temple ceremony. she also denied Brigham Young’s prophethood and was instrumental in establishing a rival church that prevailed in court for ownership of many LDS assets.

I agree that Bushman is an interesting read, i particularly liked rough stone rolling. I would add Todd Compton’s in sacred loneliness, d. michael quinn’s early mormonism and the magic world view, grant palmers an insiders view of mormon origins, and sidney rigdon portrait of religious excess by richard van waggoner to your list of books by LDS historians.They try very hard to portray the truth while staying as pro-LDS as possible. I find the cognitive dissonance required for that to be prohibitive.

 

[4boysMom]

I have been pondering this issue for a long time… What gets me is Mitt Romney calls himself a Christian. By no means are the Mormons Christian. They do not believe in the Trinity (the basic belief of all Christians) They believe in some sort of “God Head” theology. Secondly, he has changed his beliefs…sorta like “Flip Flop”. I understand that the Mormons do not believe a baby is a baby until it is born.

He seems to be trying to persuade the Christian community that he is a Christian, when we all know that they are not… so right there I would not vote for the guy.

Priests for Life seems to be backing Sam Brownback. He is very pro-life and if all Catholics , Protestants and Non -Denominationals would vote their faith…this would not be an issue and we would have a good faithful Christian to vote for

Check out **Priests for Life **and see how Sam Brownback has voted.

 

[hosemonkey]

The previous poster said it. “Mormons ain’t Christians.” They gave up polygamy kicking and screaming because Utah statehood rested on it. This was settled by a quick “revelation” and all was well. The previous “revelation” by Joe Smith is still on the books. Don’t care what kind of name you give yourself or how many times the name of Jesus appears in your denomination’s name, if you deny basic Christian belief, then you AIN’T a Christian. In the case of Mormonism, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is not necessarily a duck.

ps: Amen to Brownback.

 

[why_me]

I have been pondering this issue for a long time… What gets me is Mitt Romney calls himself a Christian. By no means are the Mormons Christian. They do not believe in the Trinity (the basic belief of all Christians) They believe in some sort of “God Head” theology. Secondly, he has changed his beliefs…sorta like “Flip Flop”. I understand that the Mormons do not believe a baby is a baby until it is born.

He seems to be trying to persuade the Christian community that he is a Christian, when we all know that they are not… so right there I would not vote for the guy.

There seems to be a very simple problem with your logic. Are catholics’ christian? Some protestant sects would claim no. And so, the debate of who is and who is not a christian is useless.

The mormons believe themselves to be christians. And if you knew how mormons live their lives, you would agree. They attempt to keep their body holy for the holy spirit to dwell in. They have a high standard of moral codes which mirror the catholic cathecism as defined in the new testament. And they read the scriptures every day and this includes the new testament. Not to mention saying grace over their meals, having morning and evening prayer. And they are taught that good works are important. But are they perfect? No. But then again, neither are catholics.

Question: what is a christian? If not a follower of christ and the commandments and one who puts the words of christ in a attempt to do good?

 

[why_me]

The previous poster said it. “Mormons ain’t Christians.” They gave up polygamy kicking and screaming because Utah statehood rested on it. This was settled by a quick “revelation” and all was well. The previous “revelation” by Joe Smith is still on the books. Don’t care what kind of name you give yourself or how many times the name of Jesus appears in your denomination’s name, if you deny basic Christian belief, then you AIN’T a Christian. In the case of Mormonism, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is not necessarily a duck.

Some protestant sects can claim that the Catholic Church is not christian. And there is still prejudice against the Catholic Church in US society. What is a christian? Love your neighbor has much to do with it. And yes, that would mean Mormons too. If mormons believe themselves to be christians, who am I to argue with them? Many mormons live good, holy lives with christ at the center. Many catholics should do the same within their own faith and I include my relatives in this statement.

 

[why_me]

Not only the theology, but Mormon morality is “flexible” as well. This flexibility has allowed them to feel justified in “spoiling the egyptians” (their term for swindling and stealing from non-Mormons), to “lie for the Lord” in order to get converts and hide their true beliefs and history, and to sustain polygamy as a true doctrine of Jesus that will be practiced in the next life if not eventually in this life.

Paul

I have never heard the term that you mentioned and so, I will need to discount it or put it into a bad experience. I think that you are incorrect in this post. And it doesn’t fit the experience that I have seen or heard.

 

[why_me]

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.

The dislike toward the mormons was almost immediate. It came into play when the story of the book of mormon was first announced and it progressed from there. Joseph Smith brought forth a book and this book caused hatred among many locals. But we also need to remember the protestant flair of the local communities at that time.

Joseph Smith made a claim, he saw an angel and then he claimed to have other visitations. Not much different from catholic claims of seeing the virgin mary. The hatred toward the mormons came from two fronts: Intolerance and conformity. But it also came from power. However, I must say that it would be interesting to know just how catholics responded to JS and his message. It seems that most of the intolerance came from the protestant communities. I do believe that the Catholic Church was not high on the list of favorite churches at that time either.

The mormons were forced from community to community and when this happened local people felt threatened since the mormons traveled in large numbers and represented huge voting blocks and influence. The mormons represented difference and they acted differently. This caused problems among local communities who were not known of their tolerance of difference.

Did these mormon communities make mistakes? Yes, they did. But in a country that supposed religious freedom and toleration, what happened to the mormon community was a travesty of justice. They were prevented from practicing their religion and that is a blight on religious freedom in a country that professed religious freedom.

Joseph Smith was murdered because of intolerance, regrardless of what mistakes he made in his life.

 

[why_me]

I agree that Bushman is an interesting read, i particularly liked rough stone rolling. I would add Todd Compton’s in sacred loneliness, d. michael quinn’s early mormonism and the magic world view, grant palmers an insiders view of mormon origins, and sidney rigdon portrait of religious excess by richard van waggoner to your list of books by LDS historians.They try very hard to portray the truth while staying as pro-LDS as possible. I find the cognitive dissonance required for that to be prohibitive.

Bushman is an interesting read. Joseph Smith comes across as a human being in his portrait of him. However, the other books that you mentioned do have a critical/anti-mormon bias to them depending on the book and should be read as such.

 

[why_me]

yet Emma denied polygamy, eternal marriage and the temple ceremony. she also denied Brigham Young’s prophethood and was instrumental in establishing a rival church that prevailed in court for ownership of many LDS assets.

Emma had a problem with polygamy and this is recorded in the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants, section 132 I believe. Emma loved her husband and Joseph Smith loved Emma. But for Joseph who claimed to receive a revelation about plural marriage was between a rock and a hard place with emma.

When JS was murdered, Emma was devastated and she denied that polygamy occured. Her son, Joseph Smith the third, who later became leader of the reorganized lds church traveled to Utah to discover if his father was a polygamist. I believe, he discovered the truth in Utah.

But Emma never denied her husband was a prophet of god, nor did she deny the book of mormon. She later married a good man, a non-mormon who confirmed I believe, his wife’s testimony of the book. Such is the enigma that emma was. Mormonism is interesting…isn’t it?

 

[Allweather]

The dislike toward the mormons was almost immediate. It came into play when the story of the book of mormon was first announced and it progressed from there. Joseph Smith brought forth a book and this book caused hatred among many locals. But we also need to remember the protestant flair of the local communities at that time.

The theories advanced by the BoM were not unique to it. Ideas about the origins of the indians were widespread in those days. Others had written about it. The BoM follows one of the fashions of the day. When claims were made that BoM is “Scripture” on a level equal with the Bible, then obviously there was a confrontation set in place with the orthodox Christians of America, most of whom in those days were Protestant.

Joseph Smith made a claim, he saw an angel and then he claimed to have other visitations. Not much different from catholic claims of seeing the virgin mary.

No, VERY different from valid manifestations of Mary. Joseph Smith ended up with heretical theologies. This is one of the important tests of a spiritual manifestation. If something is given thereby that contradicts what has gone before, then it can’t be valid. Joseph Smith got a new church going from the very git-go. As the years went by, it deviated badly from orthodoxy. Valid Marian apparitions have not led to new theologies or fracturing of the Body of Christ. So, there is an important distinction between those, and the so-called “visions” of Joseph Smith.

The hatred toward the mormons came from two fronts: Intolerance and conformity. But it also came from power.

In a day when Christianity was taken very seriously by most people in America, opposition to a false prophet is understandable.

However, I must say that it would be interesting to know just how catholics responded to JS and his message. It seems that most of the intolerance came from the protestant communities. I do believe that the Catholic Church was not high on the list of favorite churches at that time either.

That would be interesting. I doubt there is very much information because there were precious few Catholics in America in those days. Catholicism moved into America with the waves of Irish, German, Italian immigration of later years. Not that there weren’t a few Catholics, but only a few. Given the nature of Catholic doctrine and authority, one shouldn’t expect there to be much difference between Catholic reactions to Mormonism today, and those of 1830.

The mormons were forced from community to community and when this happened local people felt threatened since the mormons traveled in large numbers and represented huge voting blocks and influence. The mormons represented difference and they acted differently. This caused problems among local communities who were not known of their tolerance of difference.

Your use of the word “different” euphemises the nature of the Mormons of the mid-19th century. They were different alright. Communities were much smaller, people more close-knit, and a LOT less tolerant of anti-Christian ideals. A mass of anti-Christians following a false prophet would not have set well with Americans of that day. We shouldn’t be surprised. While those Americans acted outside the norm of what we consider charitable by today’s standards, they weren’t out of bounds for their own day.

Did these mormon communities make mistakes? Yes, they did. But in a country that supposed religious freedom and toleration, what happened to the mormon community was a travesty of justice. They were prevented from practicing their religion and that is a blight on religious freedom in a country that professed religious freedom.

I agree. I also feel that the persecutions of Jews in Europe in the 1500s at the hands of Christians was a travesty. But, seen through the eyes of 1500s man, those behaviors made more sense.

Joseph Smith was murdered because of intolerance, regrardless of what mistakes he made in his life.

There’s a theory that he was killed by Masons who were upset that Joseph had revealed some secret ceremonials to other Mormons. There is probably a lot more to the story than what Mormons teach their people today.