Polygamy.....I Now Pronounce You Man and Wives

[TexanKnight]

On an earlier thread, polygamy was discussed. I am not sure our questions were answered…

As we know, Joe was caught having relations with Fanny Alger. Joe, in an effort to cover his tracks, came up with the idea of polygamy.

Mormons will claim that the LDS Church follows the law. In fact, the 12th Article of Faith for Mormons is:

12.We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

But did they? Do they? One LDS poster claimed they follow the laws they think are fair. That seems to fly in the face of the 12th Article of Faith.

He also claimed the law WAS followed as to polygamy.

Yet, as I posted:

Polygamy continued LONG past the date it was declared illegal. It was declared illegal in 1862.

That did not stop Mormons and their “abiding by the law of the land”. They continued. In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled polygamy was not protected by the Constitution. Still, they Mormons continued. So much for “abiding by the laws of the land”.

In 1890, almost THIRTY YEARS after it was declared illegal, and 12 years after the Supreme Court declared it was not protected, a Manifesto came from Woodruff saying no NEW polygamous marriages would occur. Those existing could continue- so much for “abiding by the laws of the land”. Still, the LDS allowed new polygamous marriages. It was not till 1910, almost FIFTY years after it was declared illegal, that the LDS Church began excommunicating members for NEW marriages. The existing ones continued to exist…and those members were never ex’d.

So much for abiding by the law.

And they did not discontinue the practice because of the law…they discontinued because of the financial issues.

So, Mormons claim to follow moral laws AND governmental laws, yet they promoted polygamy, often with women already married, and did not stop polygamy, even when made illegal by the Government.

Does this seem to be a Church Jesus would start?

 

[twopekinguys]

You realize that Math won’t be chiming in right?

 

[Nicea325]

On an earlier thread, polygamy was discussed. I am not sure our questions were answered…

As we know, Joe was caught having relations with Fanny Alger. Joe, in an effort to cover his tracks, came up with the idea of polygamy.

Mormons will claim that the LDS Church follows the law. In fact, the 12th Article of Faith for Mormons is:

12.We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

But did they? Do they? One LDS poster claimed they follow the laws they think are fair. That seems to fly in the face of the 12th Article of Faith.

He also claimed the law WAS followed as to polygamy.

Yet, as I posted:

Polygamy continued LONG past the date it was declared illegal. It was declared illegal in 1862.

That did not stop Mormons and their “abiding by the law of the land”. They continued. In 1878, the Supreme Court ruled polygamy was not protected by the Constitution. Still, they Mormons continued. So much for “abiding by the laws of the land”.

In 1890, almost THIRTY YEARS after it was declared illegal, and 12 years after the Supreme Court declared it was not protected, a Manifesto came from Woodruff saying no NEW polygamous marriages would occur. Those existing could continue- so much for “abiding by the laws of the land”. Still, the LDS allowed new polygamous marriages. It was not till 1910, almost FIFTY years after it was declared illegal, that the LDS Church began excommunicating members for NEW marriages. The existing ones continued to exist…and those members were never ex’d.

So much for abiding by the law.

And they did not discontinue the practice because of the law…they discontinued because of the financial issues.

So, Mormons claim to follow moral laws AND governmental laws, yet they promoted polygamy, often with women already married, and did not stop polygamy, even when made illegal by the Government.

Does this seem to be a Church Jesus would start?

Not by a long shot!

 

[Reep]

While I understand that Christians are bound by monogamy, I have to say it was repugnant for Mormons to knuckle under on their religious teachings simply because a government defines marriage for** them.**

They would still be wrong, but I’d have more respect for them if they had stuck to their honest beliefs (if those really were their beliefs). Any religion that changes its doctrines whenever government waives a gun at them has a problem.

I suspect their are plenty of folks here who would put Mormons into prison cells for polygamy, but I would not.

 

[SteveVH]

While I understand that Christians are bound by monogamy, I have to say it was repugnant for Mormons to knuckle under on their religious teachings simply because a government defines marriage for** them.**

They would still be wrong, but I’d have more respect for them if they had stuck to their honest beliefs (if those really were their beliefs). Any religion that changes its doctrines whenever government waives a gun at them has a problem.

I suspect their are plenty of folks here who would put Mormons into prison cells for polygamy, but I would not.

Yes, the point is that one should never violate the laws of God in favor of the laws of man. If polygamy really was a command from God they should have stuck with it, even if it meant imprisonment or death. That’s what true believers do. The logical conclusion to this line of thought is that the LDS Church should be just fine with abortion since it was made legal in this country.

 

[jilly4ski]

Yes, the point is that one should never violate the laws of God in favor of the laws of man. If polygamy really was a command from God they should have stuck with it, even if it meant imprisonment or death. That’s what true believers do. The logical conclusion to this line of thought is that the LDS Church should be just fine with abortion since it was made legal in this country.

The real question is, is polygamy allowed or commanded to the Mormons. If it is merely allowable behavior, then it makes sense that they would amend their behavior to the laws of the state. If polygamy is commanded, then you are right.

My understanding of Mormanism (very deficient) is that it is something in between. That you must be married to reach the highest levels of heaven, (especially women) thus polygamy is seen as a “service” or a means for women to reach heaven.

 

[TheIrishman]

The real question is, is polygamy allowed or commanded to the Mormons. If it is merely allowable behavior, then it makes sense that they would amend their behavior to the laws of the state. If polygamy is commanded, then you are right.

My understanding of Mormanism (very deficient) is that it is something in between. That you must be married to reach the highest levels of heaven, (especially women) thus polygamy is seen as a “service” or a means for women to reach heaven.

It’s a commandment from God. Although the church “doesn’t” teach it or condone it anymore, apparently God still does, but that doesn’t matter because the Supreme Court ruled against it. But that didn’t stop the LDS church from completely stopping it.

To be honest, at least with my generation, the thought of having more than one wife is appalling and they don’t think they will be practicing it in heaven. But for the older folks and leaders in the church. Polygamy will be practiced. It’s a bizare commandment that is spoken in hushed whispers and dark corners in the LDS church. Mostly, it’s just joked about. Joking about a commandment of God, sounds about right

 

[NeuroTypical]

As we know, Joe was caught having relations with Fanny Alger.

Texan - could I ask that you not refer to my prophet as “Joe”? It’s sort of insulting and dismissive. His name was Joseph.

Mormons will claim that the LDS Church follows the law.
…
But did they? Do they?
…
Polygamy continued LONG past the date it was declared illegal. It was declared illegal in 1862.

Tangent - but your screen name - Texan? Do you know about, and take pride in, the history of the great state of Texas? How it came to be, and the wars fought, and how it ended up part of the United States? How it almost wasn’t? It’s a pretty fascinating history, involving no little amount of bloodshed, before it came into the union and was willing to entertain phrases like “it was declared illegal” from the tiny new federal government.

Utah (and a lot of the American west) has similar stories. For example, it wasn’t a state until 1896. Before that it was a territory. And before that there was all sorts of odd tinkering and ideas. The Mormons were sick of getting kicked around from place to place, and at one time, Utah (such as it was) was at the brink of war with the United States of America (such as it was).

Texas had a similar story, although much bloodier, because lots of entities wanted to fight over it. With Utah, it was just Mormons and Americans and Native Americans. But with Texas? Well, you use the phrase “it was declared illegal” like that means everything was settled, and Mormons are obviously lawbreakers. There were lots of groups, making all sorts of declarations, in the 1800’s, all over America, for the entire century. Pointing to an anecdote here and there and declaring mormons are lawbreakers? “So much for abiding by the laws of the land”, is about as valid as calling TexanKnight a lawbreaker because of Texan history.

All that said, the history of Utah, including the mormons, the US federal govt, how polygamy finally ended, and how Utah became a state, is fascinating and full of anecdotes anyone can use to justify almost any argument. But to post an anecdote or two on a message board and declare victory, seems a bit premature.

 

[LivingWaters7]

My understanding of Mormanism (very deficient) is that it is something in between. That you must be married to reach the highest levels of heaven, (especially women) thus polygamy is seen as a “service” or a means for women to reach heaven.

Well if that was the logic used by the early Mormons, then they’d have allowed women to have multiple husbands as well, since they believe that both men and women must be eternally married (sealed) to attain the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom, exaltation.

 

[twopekinguys]

Texan - could I ask that you not refer to my prophet as “Joe”? It’s sort of insulting and dismissive. His name was Joseph.

Tangent - but your screen name - Texan? Do you know about, and take pride in, the history of the great state of Texas? How it came to be, and the wars fought, and how it ended up part of the United States? How it almost wasn’t? It’s a pretty fascinating history, involving no little amount of bloodshed, before it came into the union and was willing to entertain phrases like “it was declared illegal” from the tiny new federal government.

Utah (and a lot of the American west) has similar stories. For example, it wasn’t a state until 1896. Before that it was a territory. And before that there was all sorts of odd tinkering and ideas. The Mormons were sick of getting kicked around from place to place, and at one time, Utah (such as it was) was at the brink of war with the United States of America (such as it was).

Texas had a similar story, although much bloodier, because lots of entities wanted to fight over it. With Utah, it was just Mormons and Americans and Native Americans. But with Texas? Well, you use the phrase “it was declared illegal” like that means everything was settled, and Mormons are obviously lawbreakers. There were lots of groups, making all sorts of declarations, in the 1800’s, all over America, for the entire century. Pointing to an anecdote here and there and declaring mormons are lawbreakers? “So much for abiding by the laws of the land”, is about as valid as calling TexanKnight a lawbreaker because of Texan history.

All that said, the history of Utah, including the mormons, the US federal govt, how polygamy finally ended, and how Utah became a state, is fascinating and full of anecdotes anyone can use to justify almost any argument. But to post an anecdote or two on a message board and declare victory, seems a bit premature.

First, mormons were sick of getting kicked around? How much of their problems did they bring on themselves? No mormon has ever admitted that smith, or the members were the reason for so many problems. Give me a break.

The mormon manifesto renouncing polygamy was in 1890. Statehood was in 1896. Isn’t it amazing how this “revelation” is tied to trying to obtain statehood?

Isn’t it also amazing that lifting the ban on blacks in the priesthood coincided with other schools refusing to play BYU because of it’s racist policies. Also the possible loss of tax exempt status from the IRS.

Keep in mind, that after the 1890 manifesto, the leadership, and some others of the mormon church were still practicing polygamy. joseph fielding smith for one. It is also in the congressional record that mormon “prophets” admitted breaking the law, and their own manifesto.

Did you know that a second manifesto was issued regarding polygamy?

Here is some interesting reading for you.

mormon leadership has, and continues to talk out of both sides of their mouth at the same time. Sorry, but facts are facts.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Well if that was the logic used by the early Mormons, then they’d have allowed women to have multiple husbands as well, since they believe that both men and women must be eternally married (sealed) to attain the highest level in the Celestial Kingdom, exaltation.

Sylvia Sessions and Zina Jacobs both had multiple husbands.

 

[Sam_777]

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif for polygamy…

At the end we will be like Angels once in Paradise https://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif…

 

[ffg]

The real question is, is polygamy allowed or commanded to the Mormons. If it is merely allowable behavior, then it makes sense that they would amend their behavior to the laws of the state. If polygamy is commanded, then you are right.

My understanding of Mormanism (very deficient) is that it is something in between. That you must be married to reach the highest levels of heaven, (especially women) thus polygamy is seen as a “service” or a means for women to reach heaven.

Reading the second paragraph here reminded me of the old ‘never fall for these manipulations’.

Like “if you love me, you’ll have sex with me”.

“If you want to go to Heaven and be well respected, you’ll not care if I have sex with all these other women. Oh don’t worry, I’ll marry them too, so it’s legit.”

Manipulation at it’s finest.

 

[Zachary]

.

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif for polygamy…

At the end we will be like Angels once in Paradise https://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif…

Not Angels; Saints. I don’t mean to hijack.

As for an earlier comment about ccalling LSD prophet “Joe” I dont see how that’s insulting at all. Afterall, we call Jesus by many names and titles, such as JC and My King. Seems like petulant whining, especially when Joe is referred to by many other less flattering things here, like an adulterer, blasphemer and heretic. His proper name should be the least of your worries.

 

[NeuroTypical]

As for an earlier comment about ccalling LSD prophet “Joe” I dont see how that’s insulting at all. Afterall, we call Jesus by many names and titles, such as JC and My King. Seems like petulant whining

Petulant whining, Zachary? In my 12 years of paying attention, the only people who call Joseph Smith names like “Joe” or “Joey boy”, are critics who are engaged in attacking some aspect of Joseph. Historically, the armed mobs who were clamoring for blood were shouting about “old Joe and his gold bible”.

Just for the record, when I discuss the Pope, I’ll continue to use the appropriate title Pope Francis, and not “Frankie-boy” or any other such insulting nonsense.

I don’t think it’s petulant whining to request that an atmosphere of civility needs to go both ways.

 

[ffg]

Petulant whining, Zachary? In my 12 years of paying attention, the only people who call Joseph Smith names like “Joe” or “Joey boy”, are critics who are engaged in attacking some aspect of Joseph. Historically, the armed mobs who were clamoring for blood were shouting about “old Joe and his gold bible”.

Just for the record, when I discuss the Pope, I’ll continue to use the appropriate title Pope Francis, and not “Frankie-boy” or any other such insulting nonsense.

I don’t think it’s petulant whining to request that an atmosphere of civility needs to go both ways.

How about getting the thread back on track, I think your opinion of the matter would be interesting.

From what I can deduce (please correct me where wrong)…

Joseph, your prophet, was caught in an illigitimate act, and in the moment declared it was from God.

Your thoughts?

 

[NeuroTypical]

First, mormons were sick of getting kicked around? How much of their problems did they bring on themselves?

Oh, plenty - especially in Nauvoo. For the regular folks in Illinois, it must have been quite disturbing to watch the mormons show up and grow their town to the largest in Illinois, have the largest Militia in Illinois, with all the talk of polygamy, and Joseph running for president. If I lived in frontier Illinois and witnessed that happening 20 miles away from my town, I’d have serious concerns too.

No mormon has ever admitted that smith, or the members were the reason for so many problems. Give me a break.

Hi twopekingguys. My name is NeuroTypical. I was born LDS, went inactive for 6 years around age 18, and am currently seceretary in my Elder’s Quorum. And I know a thing or two about how the early mormons brought some of their hard times on themselves. Sometimes by conscious choice, sometimes by ignorance, sometimes by ignoring wise counsel.

Now you can say “I’ve met one mormon who admitted Smith or the members brought some of their problems on themselves.” (I came to these opinions by reading published stuff written by lots of people, including mormons, btw, so I’m hardly the only one.)

The mormon manifesto renouncing polygamy was in 1890. Statehood was in 1896. Isn’t it amazing how this “revelation” is tied to trying to obtain statehood?

I think my earlier post in this thread confirms it. Mormon history, Texas history, heck, even the history of Rome in the 1800’s, they all are full of fascinating details and endless speculation about reasons and causes.

For example: Did you know that you can make a pretty good case that Mormons are one of the prime reasons that women have the right to vote in the US? Utah was sort of deadlocked for a while on the subject of polygamy, with half the voting population pro-polygamy, and half against. Both sides said “Hey, let’s get the women to vote, and they’ll side with us.” The amendment to the US constitution happened in 1920, but decades before that, each state fought it’s own battle over the issue, with Utah and Idaho as some of the forefront states.

(The women voted with the mormons, btw.)

Anyway, the whole issue of polygamy is indeed difficult for mormons to deal with. You can spend all day citing obvious reasons, and weeks assuming other reasons. At the end of the day, what I tell folks is the only good reason to be mormon, is you believe God wants you to be one. I do, so I am. If I did not, I doubt I’d be LDS - the history and truth claims are just too much for me to swallow otherwise.

 

[lax16]

NeuroTypical -

Do you believe that there will be sexual relations in heaven because of your belief in eternal marriage?

btw - We know there will be love in heaven, but I am not talking about that.

thanks!

 

[lax16]

NeuroTypical -

If a Mormon remarries after the death of a spouse, who will they be married to in heaven?

thanks!

 

[NeuroTypical]

Do you believe that there will be sexual relations in heaven because of your belief in eternal marriage?

We believe in the resurrection, and we take that to mean that we’ll have perfected, glorified, eternal physical bodies. I sure hope that fulfilling physical intimacy will be a part of such an existence. Wouldn’t you?

If a Mormon remarries after the death of a spouse, who will they be married to in heaven?

Yep - if you believe in a marriage remaining binding throughout the eternities, then there are some logical ramifications to that belief. One of them is that to this day, even though an LDS man can only be married to one living spouse at a time, he can be sealed to more than one. Usually this happens as a result of a death, but it can also be the case in a divorce, because a legal divorce doesn’t automatically nullify a temple sealing.

So the direct answer to your question, is “assuming everyone makes it to heaven, they will be sealed to whoever they’re sealed to on earth.”

I understand it is quite easy to point a mocking finger of scorn at these beliefs. Go for it if you wish.

Actually, in the interests of open transparency and full disclosure, I’ll give you an even more difficult one that challenges us mormons:
Suppose a man and woman are sealed in the temple and the marriage ends through death or divorce but the sealing remains intact. Then suppose the man marries another woman outside of the temple. Our belief indicates that any offspring from that 2nd marriage, would actually be sealed to the man and first wife. I have known more than one couple in this situation.

How do I resolve this? Well, I believe in a God that shares many of the attributes you folks believe in. Perfect love, a perfect combination of mercy and justice. I also believe that actions and choices here on earth can have eternal consequenses, so it’s important to choose wisely. Also, I believe those who make it into God’s presence have, through their own efforts or through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, will not take earthly envies, jealousies, grudges, hate, or anger with them. (In other words, it’s possible for us to rise above a lot of the stuff that bugs us on earth, so it won’t bug us in the afterlife and keep us from God’s presence.) Finally, sealings and cancellations are not permanent, and can change to fit the obvious circumstances people are in.

Again, such beliefs are easily mocked and scorned. I know Catholics do not share these beliefs. We mormons believe in eternal families, and that belief means we must struggle with logical extremes and consequenses like the stuff above. If you need to make fun of me, I guess you’ll do so.