NOM

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:30 pm I guess it's a matter of defending the Savior (thanks, Elder Cook!) at all costs.

Hey! I see what you did there...

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 4:30 pm

jfro18 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 2:43 pmThe fact is these were sexual and that the wives of Joseph Smith that did go on the record said they lived as his wives

For which the apologetic response is that the women were lying under order of Brigham Young to strengthen his argument that his own polygamy was in harmony with Joseph's. It seems only slightly less damning to me to suggest that the second prophet was forcing women to dishonestly insist that they had sex with the first prophet. When they say these things do they even pause to consider how bad such answers really are? I guess it's a matter of defending the Savior (thanks, Elder Cook!) at all costs. The reputation of anyone else is entirely expendable.

Polygamy is just the messiest damned subject there is, which is why the Face to Face glossed over it so carefully.

I want to do a write up of this letter now and go over all of these points and how abusive the whole practice was for the daughters given away, the families who had to do so, and Joseph's "beloved Emma."

Of all the things that bother me about mormonism, the one that just makes me sick if when women say they are OK with it because it was from God. I guarantee my wife would be miserable if polygamy was around today and she had to see me bringing back new wives that were younger than her as she was stuck at home with the kids. It is such an abusive and ugly practice... and illegal... and immoral... and contrary to the Bible...

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:39 am Polygamy is just the messiest damned subject there is, which is why the Face to Face glossed over it so carefully.

I am fairly certain that the polygamy articles on FairMormon had multiple editors and lawyers go over the carefully worded denials about plural marriage. FairMormon does acknowledge that sexuality was a confirmed part of at least some of the marriages. But even in the polyandrous relationships apologists are adamant that nothing improper actually happened even as complicated as the whole business is.

The central problem is that there is no general theory of plural marriage. No foundational reasons are ever given for polygamy except for troubling phrases in the essay.

• "The rumors prompted members and leaders to issue carefully worded denials that denounced spiritual wifery and polygamy but were silent about what Joseph Smith and others saw as divinely mandated “celestial” plural marriage."
• "But Emma likely did not know about all of Joseph’s sealings."
• "Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment."

Youth are repeatedly told that temple marriage is literally the most important ordinance in mortality. The "exact instructions" around marital fidelity are rather explicit. But we have to give Joseph a break on this because the fundamental reasons for this radical digression of fidelity are not only unknown, we are discouraged from speculation about it.

Yesterday in Sunday School we covered Amos 3:7

Amost 3:7 wrote:Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

This is the central explanation for putting our trust in prophets. Missionaries use this scripture to shame other Christians who do not have any modern prophets today. But the secrets of plural marriage remain hidden and prophets no longer have access to further questioning.

Another case might be the following quote which is often used to point out how far out of line BY was with today's understanding of church doctrine.

"The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:269.)

Almost none of us are polygamists today, so we're all screwed according to BY right? He must have been a false prophet!

However, the context of that sentence does change the meaning a bit. Just before that line, BY states...

"...if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at least in your faith,..."

Just as we don't practice it now, not everyone practiced polygamy in the early church. Brigham Young wasn't condemning those people to an eternity of servitude. But he was telling them to keep faithful enough to accept anything that came their way, including polygamy.

Don't get me wrong, I see many ways that BY's doctrine was out of step with today's teachings. And if a prophet of God can introduce false doctrine then, why not now? I get it. But I don't think that quote applies to that situation as much as a lot of people would like it to.

What gets me:

Church leadership continually point to the Biblical Patriarchs as the example and proof scripture for polygamy, saying it was commanded of God.

The reality is that plural marriage was never commanded of God. The early Patriarchs were usually wedged into it by other people. And in most cases unhappy things were the fruit of those marriages. There is no Biblical scripture where God commands a man to take a plural wife outside of very extraordinary circumstances such as a levirite marriage.

The only "scriptural" support for polygamy comes from Joseph's writings and of course they wouldn't be biased, right?

I believe polygamy to be a hold over from the tribal and idol worshipping people's before Abraham. If anything God was trying to rid the practice from his people or at a minimum turning a blind eye to a practice he didn't favor.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:06 am But I hate to say it, FAIRMORMON has a point - critics of the Church have somewhat misrepresented the letter by leaving key sections of it out. I'm not going back to TBM status over it, but I think it should serve as a warning that we need to be as fair, open, and complete in the information we provide to support our criticisms of the Church and its history as possible. We have all been victimized by the Church hiding things from us - we are no more justified in doing the same than they are.

Agreed 100%. One of the factors that kept me seeing criticism as "attack" were the number of poorly presented arguments, genuine errors by honest critics, and disingenuous statements by dishonest critics. I only imagine it similarly emboldens current TBMs.

Mad Jax wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 6:44 am

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 10:06 am But I hate to say it, FAIRMORMON has a point - critics of the Church have somewhat misrepresented the letter by leaving key sections of it out. I'm not going back to TBM status over it, but I think it should serve as a warning that we need to be as fair, open, and complete in the information we provide to support our criticisms of the Church and its history as possible. We have all been victimized by the Church hiding things from us - we are no more justified in doing the same than they are.

Agreed 100%. One of the factors that kept me seeing criticism as "attack" were the number of poorly presented arguments, genuine errors by honest critics, and disingenuous statements by dishonest critics. I only imagine it similarly emboldens current TBMs.

This is true in politics as well... sometimes you have 1,000 legit reasons to attack someone, but you choose one that's grounded in evidence and the other side clings to that to prove that *everything* the critics are saying is a lie.

We see this every single day in politics now... and it's why people who are going to criticize should be careful not to give them ammo, and if they do make a genuine mistake own up to it *or* admit upfront that there are other ways to interpret it to be fair.

When Joseph's sexual dalliances became rather scandalous, Hyrum was able to step in with the idea of polygamous wives. That lead to the entire polygamy experience becoming the overwhelming Principle of the LDS Church until the practice eventually went underground.

What if Hyrum had suggested that Free Love was the overarching principle for Joseph's behavior? Free love was after all another idea bandied about in the Burned-over District of New York. An angel with a drawn sword commanding Joseph to practice free love could have changed the face of Mormonism.

Today's Mormons might actually encourage the bare shoulder look if that explanation had been used instead.

moksha wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:21 am When Joseph's sexual dalliances became rather scandalous, Hyrum was able to step in with the idea of polygamous wives. That lead to the entire polygamy experience becoming the overwhelming Principle of the LDS Church until the practice eventually went underground.

What if Hyrum had suggested that Free Love was the overarching principle for Joseph's behavior? Free love was after all another idea bandied about in the Burned-over District of New York. An angel with a drawn sword commanding Joseph to practice free love could have changed the face of Mormonism.

Today's Mormons might actually encourage the bare shoulder look if that explanation had been used instead.

Since we know Joseph either wrote or co-authored the BofM, doesn't Jacob 2:30 show that he had been thinking about polygamy and "raising seed" for quite some time?

Did he really need much help from Hyrum?

Palerider wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:18 am Did he really need much help from Hyrum?

Sometimes a second opinion is invaluable, especially if you are too close to the problem to see it clearly.